Oops . . . another loan goes unreported

cruz

Here it goes again.

First it was a loan from Goldman Sachs to his 2012 U.S. Senate campaign that has caused some head-scratching. Now a second loan to Ted Cruz’s campaign has been discovered to have been omitted from required election campaign filings.

Is there a third, or fourth or fifth loan out there that the Republican presidential candidate failed to report properly?

The second loan was a $500,000 sum from Citibank directly to Cruz’s Senate campaign in Texas.

The GOP presidential contender’s campaign said the failure to report the loans to the Federal Election Commission was “inadvertent” and would be corrected.

OK, fine.

I’ll point a couple of quick points.

One is that Cruz campaigned for the Senate against Wall Street giant banking institutions. Yet he took money from the one of the big ones, which also employed his wife at the time.

Two is that Cruz has been tossing the word “lawless” around with abandon while describing the Obama administration’s actions. Let’s be careful — shall we? — with that kind of harsh language, senator.

Hey, maybe all this is as Cruz’s campaign describes it. An oversight that can be corrected quickly.

If, however, we get more of this kind of thing trickling out, it’s fair to wonder if a pattern is beginning to emerge.

 

 

DAI getting support from AMM

downtownamarilloinc1

Downtown Amarillo Inc.’s future might be getting a bit murky.

Why? Well, that’s what a political organization comprising some young Amarillo residents wants to know.

Amarillo Millennial Movement has posted a video proclaiming the successes that have occurred in downtown Amarillo since the founding of DAI.

See the video here.

The Amarillo City Council is considering some major reconfiguration of downtown’s redevelopment strategy. DAI might not figure nearly as prominently in future economic redevelopment efforts.

The council might move some of the economic redevelopment efforts directly into City Hall, which would reduce significantly DAI’s role in future efforts.

AMM’s video cites a number of successful projects that have begun or been completed while DAI — a non-profit agency — has been on the job.

The Fisk Building revival? New lofts along 10th Avenue? Park development near the Potter County Courthouse? New commercial development? Street improvements? Ground being broken for the new Embassy Suites Hotel and for the new parking garage?

AMM wants DAI to stay on the job and is using social media to lobby the City Council to keep the agency as a viable economic development tool.

I happen to agree with AMM’s request.

I am acutely aware of the criticism that DAI has drawn from some quarters here and there in the city. But as I look at how downtown has progressed over the past few years, I keep wondering: Precisely why is this agency being singled out?

City Councilman Brian Eades remains a strong proponent for DAI. He said the other day that DAI “has been more responsible for the success we’ve had than any other entity.” He added that DAI comprises “experts at this and they’ve done a good job.”

So, why the rush to change what appears to be a successful formula for guiding the city toward a brighter future?

 

Tough talk rises from GOP debate

chrischristie_0

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said the following at the latest Republican Party presidential debate Thursday night.

Frankly, it’s a hoot.

“Mr. President, we’re not against you. We’re against your policies,” Christie said. “The American people have rejected your agenda and now you’re trying to go around it. That’s not right. It’s not constitutional. And we are going to kick your rear end out of the White House come this fall.”

This is the guy who told a constituent to “sit down and shut up!” when the constituent — for whom Christie works in New Jersey — had the temerity to issue a critical statement at a public event. I’m trying to imagine myself telling any of the bosses for whom I worked to “sit down and shut up!”

It’s the kind of rhetoric that seems to endear him to many within the GOP.

But the idea that the Republican presidential nominee, whoever he or she is, will kick the president’s “rear end out of the White House come this fall” misses a fundamental point.

Barack Obama isn’t on the ballot. The U.S. Constitution places term limits on him. The 22nd Amendment says a president can be elected twice to the office. That’s it. Two and out, man.

Barack Obama was elected in 2008, winning 365 electoral votes while capturing more than 10 million more popular votes than Republican nominee Sen. John McCain; he was re-elected in 2012 with 332 electoral votes, while defeating GOP nominee Mitt Romney by nearly 5 million popular votes. He needed 270 electoral votes to win both times. His Electoral College majorities in both elections were substantial.

So, have “the American people rejected” the president’s agenda?

Seems to me — and I’m just tossing this out from the Flyover Country peanut gallery — that the president’s agenda played pretty well in the past two presidential elections.

The president is going to leave the White House a year from now on his own terms. He isn’t going to get his rear end “kicked out” of the place.

However, the tough talk that Christie — not to mention the other GOP hopefuls who debated the other night — sounds good to those who want to hear it.

If only it were true.

 

Birther debate getting muddier

rs-trump-cruz

Ted Cruz didn’t need to go where he went . . . but he did.

The Texas Republican U.S. senator raised a curious and completely irrelevant issue in seeking to refute presidential rival Donald J. Trump’s questions about Cruz’s eligibility to run for president of the United States.

During the GOP debate in North Charleston, S.C., Cruz said that under “some theories” Trump might not be eligible to serve because his mother was born in Scotland.

Oh, boy.

Sen. Cruz? That’s even more of a non-starter than the questions that Trump and others are raising about your own eligibility.

Trump keeps questioning whether Cruz can run for president because he was born in Canada. Cruz’s mother is an American, which by the reckoning of many constitutional scholars, makes him eligible; he became a U.S. citizen simply because of his mother’s citizenship.

End of discussion? Not even close.

Cruz muddied it up even more by suggesting that Trump’s mother’s birthplace might jeopardize the frontrunner’s eligibility.

This discussion is venturing into a realm that is reaching far beyond ridiculous.

Trump’s mother’s place of birth is not an issue. Neither is Cruz’s place of birth. Both men are qualified to run for the presidency.

How about staying focused on the real issues of this campaign?

Such as how they intend to govern.

 

Search for plane turns up . . . what?

untitled

I don’t know whether to laugh or scream at this news.

An Australian search vessel looking for Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 has discovered some wreckage at the bottom of the Indian Ocean.

Is it the plane? Is it any aircraft? Oh, no. It’s now been determined that the debris is from an early 1800s shipwreck.

What about MH 370, which vanished on March 8, 2014 after taking off from Kuala Lumpur en route to Beijing? It’s still gone. Not a trace of it has been found anywhere. Satellite technology, state-of-the-art underwater vessels, shipboard sonar and radar all have failed.

A Boeing 777 with more than 200 individuals on board has vaporized.

Truth be told I’m not altogether sure why I’m even commenting on this item.

The direct descendants of those who were lost on the ship are long gone.

As for those who are waiting for word about the missing jetliner . . . well, they’re still in great pain.

 

 

Open carry on campus? Please . . . no!

campus carry

State Sen. Kel Seliger, R-Amarillo, today made it clear that he opposes the notion of allowing anyone to carry weapons on college campuses in Texas.

More to the point, as I heard his talk today to the Rotary Club of Amarillo, he said that allowing guns into college classrooms is a particularly bad idea.

He noted a key foe of the idea of allowing such activity. That would be the chancellor of the University of Texas System. You’ve heard of him, perhaps. Former Navy Admiral William McRaven once led the nation’s special forces command. He is a Navy SEAL who, according to Seliger, “knows more about guns than just about anyone.”

McRaven thinks allowing guns on campus is a bad idea.

Seliger then presented a fascinating scenario to buttress the point about how bad an idea it is to let someone carry a gun openly into a university classroom.

Suppose a professor gives a student a bad grade, he said. Suppose, then, that the grade enrages the student so much that he wants to harm the professor.

I think you get the point.

I’m not going to oppose openly the idea of allowing Texans to carry guns in plain sight. The concealed carry law, enacted in 1995, hasn’t produced gunfights at traffic intersections, as some of us — yours truly included — had feared would happen.

But there ought to be some places where we ought to restrict the open display of these weapons.

Houses of worship are among those places.

So are college classrooms.

And none of that endangers the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

 

Conquering telecommunications hurdles

Top-5-Most-Secured-Smartphones-in-the-Market-1

I am all to eager to admit many things about myself.

One of them is my technical shortcoming. I am not a geek. I am not fluent in the language used to discuss telecommunication devices — although I consider myself to be mildly conversant.

My sons are geeks. One of them is an uber-geek. My wife? She’s less so than even I am, although she’s becoming quite good at Internet research.

I say all this to tell you of a huge hurdle I cleared today. Well, at least I think it’s huge.

I had the pleasure today of introducing our guest speaker at the Rotary Club of Amarillo weekly luncheon. State Sen. Kel Seliger spoke to us today about education legislation and related issues with which he is familiar, given that he’s the chairman of the Senate Higher Education Committee and serves on the Education Committee.

I’ve known Seliger for the entire time we’ve lived in Amarillo. That’s 21 years. But I don’t know everything about him.

So, as I was preparing to leave the house this morning to head downtown for our meeting, I called Seliger’s Senate office in Amarillo.

“Hello, Cindy?” I said to the woman who answered the phone; I’ve known her a long time, too. “Do me a favor, please. Could you send me something that you might have in your computer system that serves as an intro for Kel? I’d like to use it to introduce him today.”

Sure thing, Cindy said. “Do you want the long form or the short form?” she asked. The short form is fine, I told her. “I’ll make up the rest of it,” I added.

Just send it to my email address, I said. She did.

My fancy-shmancy smart phone has an email “app” that allows me to receive emails on the thing. I got it within moments. I opened it. I read the text.

“Perfect,” I thought.

So, with my smart phone tucked safely in my belt holster, I drove downtown. I had some lunch with my friend and his district manager and then — shortly after our club president, Jeff Lester, called the meeting to order, I was asked to introduce Seliger to my fellow Rotary Club members.

I pulled out the phone. Opened up the email attachment and then proclaimed to my friends at the top of the Chase Tower — where we were having our lunch — that “I am finally a 21st century man.” I used the text on the phone as a crutch to welcome the senator to our club.

Yes, I know, others give entire speeches using their smart phones. I am not going to do that. I am merely going to proclaim that I have taken another baby step forward into this new age of telecommunications technology.

Hey, you have to declare these victories whenever they present themselves.

 

Trump is no Reagan

MondaleReagan1984DebateMomentNBCNews_600.jpg.jpg

Donald Trump keeps making bold comparisons between himself and, well, whomever.

Now he says the “revolution” he is leading is bigger than the one led by that one-time actor, turned California governor, turned 40th president of the United States: Ronald Wilson Reagan.

Allow me to differ with that view.

Trump’s contention is false on so many levels.

Ronald Reagan energized disaffected Democrats. They came to be known as “Reagan Democrats” or “Hard Hat Democrats.” They were blue-collar voters who had grown disaffected with their party.

Trump says the current revolutionaries following his campaign have more “intensity” than those who idolized The Gipper.

(Incidentally, I was not among those. But I am guessing you already know that.)

Allow me now to say a word about the nature of Reagan’s message. Yes, it was stern. He took great pleasure and pride in sticking it into the ear of his Democratic rivals. But his call for change had a certain good humor about it. Did that tamp down the intensity of his supporters? Hardly. It made them love him more.

I’m trying to imagine a President Trump (my hands quiver when I type those words) sitting down with political leaders from the opposing party, sharing an adult beverage and a few off-color jokes — as President Reagan often did with House Speaker Tip O’Neill. I can’t get there.

Did Reagan ever call his foes “stupid,” or “incompetent,” or “pathetic”? Did he ever use words like “weak” to describe this country?

He used language much more artfully and with much more nuance. Did that skill weaken the intensity of his supporters? Not even close.

The intensity of the late president’s supporters carried him to two landslide victories — the second of which came within about 2,000 votes of a 50-state Electoral College sweep!

Do you remember that great moment during the second presidential debate in 1984 with Democratic Party nominee Walter Mondale? The first encounter produced several stumbles, bumbles and mumbles from the president. Observers wondered aloud about the president’s mental fitness for the job.

Then came the question during Debate No. 2: Are you up to the job, Mr. President? “I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent’s youth and inexperience,” Reagan said.

You know who laughed the hardest at that line? Walter Mondale.

With that, I’ll paraphrase a line made famous by another great American politician, U.S. Sen. Lloyd Bentsen, the Texas Democrat who ran for vice president in 1988.

Mr. Trump, you’re no Ronald Reagan.

 

Just suppose the Democrats turn on Hillary, Bernie . . .

Dewey-convention-photo

Whenever the subject of “brokered convention” comes up in political circles, it always refers to Republicans.

The idea goes something like this: Several GOP candidates will remain in the race, dividing up the delegates among themselves, denying the frontrunner — whoever it is — the majority needed to sew up the nomination.

The delegates gather in Cleveland and then bicker among themselves, nominating someone on the umpteenth ballot.

It’s not likely to happen. But it could.

However, let’s play take this game a bit further.

What if the Democratic candidates do the same thing?

Two of them, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, are fighting for supremacy; a third candidate, Martin O’Malley, lags far, far behind.

But what if Sanders upsets Hillary Clinton in Iowa and then beats her in New Hampshire, which is next door to his home state of Vermont. He builds momentum heading into South Carolina. Perhaps he wins there, too. Then the fight is on.

Meanwhile, you’ve got O’Malley out there picking up stray delegates here and there in those primaries where winners do not take all.

Clinton and Sanders carve each other up to deny both of them enough delegates to get a majority at their convention.

Democrats gather in Philadelphia and commence a floor fight. No one emerges as the consensus. To whom do they turn?

Oh yeah. The vice president of the United States, Joseph Biden.

Will that happen? It’s far less likely to occur than a Republican donnybrook.

Then again . . .

 

 

Will the VP stay with the fight once he leaves office?

Vice President Joe Biden points at President Barack Obama during the State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 12, 2016. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci, Pool)

President Obama made a stirring choice Tuesday night.

He turned to Vice President Joe Biden and declared that he would be “in charge of mission control” while leading a concerted effort to rid the world of cancer. The vice president will be the point man to find a cure for the dreaded disease.

It was a poignant moment for one major reason: Joe Biden’s son, Beau, died this past year of brain cancer; the younger Biden’s death resonated around the world as we watched the vice president and his family grieve openly — but with dignity and grace.

So it makes sense for the president to put him in charge of such a noble effort.

However …

Barack Obama’s got just about one year left as president; Biden’s time as vice president expires at the same time.

Will this team of researchers find a cure between now and then? Probably not.

So, will the vice president remain as head of the team once the Obama administration leaves office? My hope is that whoever becomes the next president — Democrat or Republican — will ask Biden to remain on the job for as long as he is able.

Joe Biden can become a serious force of nature in the effort to raise money to conduct the research needed to find this cure. Granted, it’s not as if health institutions, think tanks, research hospitals and universities haven’t done a lot already to find a cure.

Having the vice president of the United States take the point on that effort shouldn’t end once he hands his office keys to whoever succeeds him.

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience