Christie clears himself of wrongdoing

This just in: A team of lawyers with close ties to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie says the governor didn’t do anything wrong in the infamous closure of George Washington Bridge lanes.

Who knew?

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/christie-bridge-scandal/internal-probe-christies-account-bridgegate-rings-true-n63796

I have an idea. It’s worked before in other controversies that turned into scandals.

Why not hire a real, honest-to-goodness independent special prosecutor to look deeply into this matter?

A brief background: Someone reportedly ordered the closure of several lanes on the world’s busiest bridge in 2013 after the Fort Lee, N.J. mayor, a Democrat, refused to endorse the re-election bid by Christie, a Republican. The traffic tie-up caused incredible havoc on the bridge. Democrats accused Christie of getting back at the mayor. Republicans say that’s so much bunk. Christie has said from the beginning he had no advance knowledge of the closure. Others have said he is covering up what he knew and when he knew it.

The law firm that did this probe didn’t interview some key principals in the matter, such as former deputy Christie chief of staff Bridget Kelly who sent out the infamous email that said it was “time for some traffic problems” on the GW bridge.

Hey, a special prosecutor should be turned loose on this matter.

Do the names Leon Jaworski and Ken Starr ring any bells for you. Jaworski was the special prosecutor who probed the cover-up of the Watergate scandal that eventually brought down the presidency of Richard Nixon. And Starr? He was picked to investigate something called “Whitewater” during the Clinton presidency and his investigation ended up revealing a tawdry sexual affair involving the president and a young White House intern; President Clinton was impeached as a result, tried in the Senate and acquitted of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

President Nixon didn’t know about the Watergate break-in in advance. The cover-up did him in.

This so-called “investigation” of Gov. Christie’s alleged role in the bridge-lane closure doesn’t even come close to putting an end to this story.

Bring in an independent counsel and let’s get some real answers.

Congressman rewrites loser's text

An Iowa congressman running for a U.S. Senate seat in the Hawkeye State has just written a new chapter in the textbook explaining how one can blunder his way into a losing political campaign.

You denigrate your opponent’s history as and say that what Congress needs is another lawyer in its midst.

Rep. Bruce Braley is a Democratic congressman seeking to succeed incumbent Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley.

He was overheard telling this to some Texas trial lawyers at a Democratic Party fundraiser: “If you help me win this race, you may have someone with your background, your experience, your voice, someone who’s been literally fighting tort reform for 30 years, in a visible or public way, on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Or you might have a farmer from Iowa who never went to law school, never practiced law, serving as the next chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Because, if Democrats lose the majority, Chuck Grassley will be the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee.”

Ouch!

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/201882-braleys-farmer-from-iowa-remarks-could-spell-election-trouble

Granted, Braley’s remarks were targeted toward a specific constituency — like-minded lawyers who want one of their own in the Senate — but he apparently forgot how viral some of these statements can get when they’re overheard and sent out over that vast expanse called the Internet.

He apologized immediately to Grassley. I suspect the damage is done and it well might be irreparable.

Iowa has become an increasingly “purple” state that has voted Democratic in the past seven presidential elections. It has elected progressive senators, such as Tom Harkin, who is retiring from the Senate at the end of the year.

Bruce Braley wants to ascend to Harkin’s seat. He won’t get there if he suggests that farming is somehow less important than practicing law. Someone ought to show him all that cultivated land in his home state.

College student-athletes may unionize

College athletic tradition has just taken a serious — and potentially devastating — punch in the gut.

Call me a fuddy-duddy. That’s OK. I’ll admit to being such where it regards college athletics. A ruling out of Chicago is potentially quite disturbing — to me, at least.

A National Labor Relations Board hearings officer has ruled that Northwestern University student-athletes are employees of the school and therefore should be allowed to form a union if they so desire.

http://www.psmag.com/navigation/politics-and-law/northwestern-football-players-win-union-ruling-now-77616/

This might open the door eventually to paying student-athletes real money — above board and over the table, instead of under it … allegedly — to play college sports.

Let’s not overstate the immediate impact of this NLRB decision. It’s only a highly preliminary action. The full NLRB board must consider it. The full board might think differently. If it does, you can rest assured the student-athletes who have sued for the right to unionize will appeal it to the federal judicial system. If the NLRB upholds this decision, then look for colleges and universities to file a counter-claim that also will wind its way through the court system.

I get all the arguments in favor of allowing unionization for student-athletes. They do make money for the school they are attending. Did Heisman Trophy winner Johnny “Football” Manziel bring a few extra fans to Kyle Stadium when he played for Texas A&M University? You bet he did.

He also was getting a fully paid college education in the process. His football talent enabled him to win a full-ride scholarship to one of the better schools in the world. Sure, I get that he well might not have taken his classroom obligation as seriously as his football obligation. He wouldn’t be the first student-athlete to, um, forget to crack the textbook while burning the midnight oil studying the playbook.

Manziel is just one example out of many hundreds across the country.

This decision well could change fundamentally the way we view college athletics and those who participate in them.

It makes me seriously uncomfortable to think that these young men and women could well become professionals before they turn pro.

Revisiting Potter County judge contest

Indulge me for a moment, maybe two, as I look back to the March 4 Republican Party primary race for Potter County judge.

I ran into a long-time acquaintance the other morning. We talked about the contest and we asked each other whether we were happy with the outcome. I was, given that Nancy Tanner won the election outright in a five-candidate field; she’ll take office in January, given that there are no Democrats on the ballot this fall.

My pal wasn’t so sure about it. We both live in Randall County, so neither of us had a vote to cast in that contest. We both know all the contestants, some better than others.

He said something curious. He didn’t think Tanner was necessarily the right pick, even though she worked for 20 years as County Judge Arthur Ware’s administrative assistant and for a couple of years assumed many of the actual duties of judge as Ware has tried to recover from a devastating stroke.

Ware fired Tanner from her job this past year for reasons he hasn’t yet explained.

I asked my friend: Why not support Tanner’s election?

It would be like asking the city secretary to take over as mayor of Amarillo, he said. I responded, “Huh?”

The city secretary is a capable individual — who succeeded another highly capable person at that City Hall post. The secretary, my pal said, is capable of doing all the administrative functions, but she isn’t necessarily a leader.

Thus, he contends, Tanner is succeeding to a post where she hasn’t demonstrated any leadership qualities.

Well, I differed with my friend — as I do on most political matters. I consider him a contrarian; he likely thinks the same of me.

I’ll just go on believing that Potter County Republicans chose wisely when they elected Tanner with a 50.5 percent majority. She’s done the job already. She knows the players. She understands county government. She’s experienced, highly qualified, understands the intricacies of probate law and mental health commitments.

The leadership part? I am confident Nancy Tanner will show her mettle.

Zoo becomes a killing field?

What in the world is going on at the Copenhagen, Denmark zoo?

The folks who run the place are killing animals to make room for other animals. First, it was a giraffe named Marius that zookeepers put down. Why? Because they wanted to make room for another male giraffe.

Now this week the zoo euthanized four lions — a breeding pair, male and female, and two cubs — to pave the way for a new male lion.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/26/world/europe/copenhagen-zoo-lions/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

I don’t get this.

Zoo officials say the killing of the lions was necessary because they were too old to produce more offspring; what’s more, the new male lion would have killed the cubs, which is normal in the wild when a male lion takes over a pride. Any cub that he doesn’t bring into the world is a goner. I’ve seen enough National Geographic and Discovery Channel specials to know that the law of the wild is brutal and without remorse at times.

Let’s wait a minute.

A zoo isn’t the wild, no matter how badly zookeepers want to make it seem so for the critters it keeps.

Aren’t there exchanges among zoos that would enable the Copenhagen zoo to send the lions elsewhere to make room for the big, bad male lion it wants to bring in? Zoo officials said they tried to place the lions in other locations “but there wasn’t any interest.”

Human interest being what it is, the Copenhagen zoo has just bought itself a bucket load of bad feelings from around the world — as it did when it killed Marius the giraffe, which reportedly was highly popular among young visitors to the zoo.

Zoos are supposed to be sanctuaries for animals that have been captured or in some cases rescued from the wild because — for whatever reason — they cannot fend for themselves. Copenhagen’s zoo, instead, seems to be turning itself into a killing zone.

Secret Service agents need to go

You’re a highly trained security officer, trained to protect the president of the United States, the head of state and government of the most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Your government has spent a lot of public money to train you to perform your duties. Therefore, your business is our business and you are accountable not just to the Leader of the Free World, but to the people who’ve bankrolled your training.

Then you go on a bender in Europe as the president is preparing to visit with heads of state of our nation’s European allies. You end up passed out in a hotel hallway. You’re drunk as a skunk, acting in a decidedly unprofessional way while representing — supposedly — the best and the brightest of this nation’s law enforcement community.

And you’re put on administrative leave?

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/201860-carney-obama-has-zero-tolerance-for-misconduct

Three Secret Service officers are in serious trouble for conduct so reprehensible it defies description. It’s not the first time. Other officers assigned to the president’s security detail were fired after they were caught cavorting with hookers in Colombia.

This latest incident is just as bad. Maybe worse, given that at least one of the agents rendered himself useless, as he was floundering in a drunken stupor in The Netherlands.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said this about the incident: “The president believes as he has said in the past that everybody representing the United States of America overseas needs to hold himself or herself to the highest standards and he supports Director (Julia) Pierson’s approach, zero-tolerance approach, on these matters.”

Zero tolerance. That sounds good enough for me.

Yes, Russia is a global power

President Obama likely needs to rethink his assessment of Russia’s place in the world of great powers.

He said this week that Russia is a “regional power” that doesn’t pose the greatest threat to the United States. The president said his greater concern is a nuclear bomb going off in Manhattan.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukraine-crisis/obama-russia-regional-power-not-top-geopolitical-foe-n61601

Why does the president need to reconsider this assessment of Russia? Two words come to mind: nuclear arsenal.

Russia inherited the bulk of the Soviet Union’s stockpile of nukes when the U.S.S.R. folded its tent in 1991. That fact alone makes the Russians a world power, no matter the strength of the Soviets’ main foe, the United States of America.

President Obama has been asked in recent days whether 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney was right to call Russia our No. 1 geopolitical foe. Obama said “no,” which comes as no surprise. Indeed, he is right to gauge the threat posed by international terror networks as the nation’s top threat. The Russian incursion into Ukraine, its influence on Ukrainian internal affairs and its threat of more military intervention should be of grave concern throughout Europe.

The president, though, seems intent on sticking it in Russian President Vladimir Putin’s eye when he downplays the worldwide threat that Russia poses. Yes, the Russians are a significant regional power. They also do possess all those nukes that, as near as anyone can tell, are capable of destroying life as we know it on Planet Earth.

That fact alone makes them a global threat.

Whatever the president says in public probably doesn’t mirror what he and his brain trust are saying about Russia in the Situation Room.

Search narrows; conclusion near?

They’re narrowing the search area in the southern Indian Ocean where it is believed Malaysia Air Flight MH 370 went down.

Does that mean an end to the nightmarish uncertainty that breaks the hearts of those awaiting word of their loved ones’ fate?

Let us pray it is so.

http://www.connectamarillo.com/news/story.aspx?id=1023038#.UzK2PFJOWt8

Without a conclusive discovery of wreckage that will lead searchers to the bottom of the ocean where they would locate the bulk of what’s left of the Boeing 777, conspiracies are going to run wild. They do no one any good.

This search has captivated the world. It has involved a multi-national team of oceanographers, aviators, sailors, scientists, politicians and anyone with any semblance of expertise on these matters. The Malaysian government will have to explain to the world why it informed loved ones via text message that the 239 passengers and crew aboard MH 370 likely are “gone.”

The mystery, captivating as it is, has brought sheer agony to many loved ones.

The ocean today reportedly is calmer. Satellite pictures are revealing more sightings of possible debris. Air crews have laid eyes on what they believe is wreckage.

Let there be a conclusion to this agony.

Memento returns home

When you spend a career in daily journalism, you are able to collect some mementos.

I thought one of them was gone after I left my last full-time journalism job. Silly me. I got it back just the other day. I feel strangely whole again.

My career in daily journalism came to an abrupt end on Aug. 30, 2012. I resigned — unhappily — from my job and was gone. Company “restructuring” can be a bitch, you know?

What did I leave behind? It was a silly bumper sticker I’ve been packing around since my older son was a sophomore in high school. A teacher of his gave him the bumper sticker and asked him to give it to me. He wanted to stick it in my ear with the bumper-sticker slogan, “I Don’t Believe the Liberal Media.”

I’ve carried it around with great pride ever since.

How did it find its way back to my hands? The librarian at the paper where I worked for nearly 18 years called me on another matter. I e-mailed her back with an answer to her call, then asked if the bumper sticker, which was pasted on the door jamb to my former office, was still there. “Yes,” she said. I asked her if she could return it to me, which she did.

My friends and others who know my political leanings know the bumper sticker is meant to be self-deprecating. They know I’m one of those “liberal media” types. I display it with pride.

This artifact, though, once was a source of tension with some colleagues at the newspaper where I worked — or so I was led to believe.

My office at the Amarillo Globe-News had been in what we called “the old building,” next to the publisher’s office. The fellow who replaced the publisher who hired me decided to make a change: He decided to move me and my staff out of that office to another location. We eventually ended up in the newsroom, across the parking lot in the newer building.

As I moved into my new digs, I put the “I Don’t Believe the Liberal Media” sign on my window, thinking my colleagues would know that I was poking fun at myself.

Not everyone, I guess, understood the irony of the sign. One of them approached me the morning of my first full day in the newsroom and informed me that “some of us” took offense at the sign. My jaw dropped. She didn’t understand the intent of the sign, which was to poke fun at myself, not to make any serious political statement. My colleague then informed me she would take the matter up with our human resources director if I didn’t remove the sign.

I relented. The sign came down and I would resent the individual for the rest of the time she worked at the newspaper.

That’s in the increasingly distant past now.

I see bumper stickers occasionally with that “I Don’t Believe … ” message on the back of vehicles driving around town. When I do, I cannot help but smile. They’re intended to convey a serious message.

I take it as a joke. I’m just glad to have my little keepsake back home.

Visit the Panhandle? Not on this tour, Leticia

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/texas-politics/files/2014/03/VDP-bus-tour.jpg

OK, kids. Take a good look at the picture attached here.

It lines out Democratic Texas lieutenant governor nominee Leticia Van de Putte’s upcoming tour of Texas.

I noticed a major Texas city is missing from that itinerary. It’s Amarillo.

But in a message to supporters, Van de Putte, a Democratic state senator from San Antonio, said this: “It’s a big responsibility in a big state, and I know I’m up to the challenge. I’ll travel more than 2,500 miles – from the vibrant Rio Grande Valley and border region to the vast high plains of the Panhandle to the Gulf Coast before ending up in the shadow of our state capitol dome – to see, hear, and experience firsthand all the things that make Texas so exceptional.”

“To the vast high plains of the Panhandle,” she writes.

Well, as I look at the itinerary posted on the picture, the closest city to the Panhandle is Lubbock, which is 120 miles south of Amarillo in what’s called the “South Plains” region.

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/texas-politics/2014/03/van-de-putte-announces-statewide-bus-tour/

The blog posted on mysanantonio.com notes that Van de Putte is going to see virtually the entire state on her bus tour. “Virtually” is the key word here. She ain’t coming to the Panhandle.

I do hope the Democratic lieutenant governor nominee can find her way here … eventually.

For now, she needs to re-learn to locate region that comprises the “vast high plains of the Panhandle.”

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience