Media need an intervention for poll addiction

polls

Frank Bruni has it right.

The New York Times columnist has declared that the American media are addicted to polls. They can’t report on them enough. The issues driving the Democratic and Republican presidential primary campaigns? Who needs ’em!

We need to write about polls.

Broadcast outlets lead with them. Print media report on them constantly.

Bruni noted that during the Christmas-to-New Year break, Iowa voters were polled 11 times about their presidential preferences. The media reported on those polls dutifully.

The most hilarious element of all this is how media types keep bemoaning the fact that the media cover these campaigns like “horse races.”

I’ll admit that I am one of those who become fixated occasionally by polls.

Some of them are quite ridiculous, actually. National polls showing voter preferences between party primary candidates present one example. I’ve noted in this blog before how meaningless those polls are, given that the candidates — say, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders — won’t face each other nationally; they are running state by state.

But hey, let’s poll voters nationally anyway.

Perhaps we can lay some of the blame for this fixation on Donald J. Trump, the leading GOP candidate for president. He loves polls. They’re huuuuge, as he says often . . . especially when they place him in the lead. Polls that place him behind someone else? Meaningless. They don’t count. Who cares about ’em?

Bruni notes in his essay, though, that Trump often starts his stump speeches off with results from the latest polls.

The media then report it.

I hope to hear itĀ from a major newspaper newsroom or a broadcast/cable TV studio: Stop us before we report on polls again!

Let’s ask High Court to settle Cruz eligibility

cruz

The U.S. Supreme Court is in session.

Sure, the justices have plenty on their individual and collective plates. How about giving them one more issue to decide?

Let’s petition the court to decide whether U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz is constitutionally eligible to run for president of the United States.

An essay in Salon suggests that upon closer examination, Cruz’s “natural born” credentials are showing signs of weakness. I’m not sure I buy that notion. I believe he’s eligible to run, despite being born in Canada; hisĀ father is Cuban, but his mother is American. U.S. law granted young Teddy citizenship the moment he came into this world.

But the question is swirling nonetheless over whether Cruz qualifies as a “natural born” U.S. citizen.

What harm can be done by asking the court to take up the issue? It comprises a conservative majority. Oh, wait. The court is non-political, yes?

What might happen if the highest court in America decides against hearing the case? That could be construed as a tacit endorsement of the notion that the Texas Republican senator is, indeed, eligible to seek the presidency.

I don’t believe the issue is a terribly complicated one to settle once and for all.

The federal law that grants citizenship to anyone born to an American citizen — regardless of where the birth occurs — either is constitutional or it isn’t.

I believe Ted Cruz is qualified to seek the presidency.

Furthermore, I also believe it’s time for the nine men and women who sit on the U.S. Supreme Court to decide this issue — for keeps!

Just one more point . . .

Cruz criticized the court this past year for its narrow ruling allowing gay marriage, saying that “five unelected judges” shouldn’t be deciding what’s legal and what isn’t.

Would the senatorĀ say the same thing if, say, five unelected judges rule in his favor on the “natural born” citizenship question?

GOP fretting like crazy over Trump, Cruz

republican-elephant-668x501

The drama being played out in the inner circles of the Republican Party national network is among the most fascinating things I’ve ever seen.

Two men have emerged as co-favorites for the GOP presidential nomination — and the party brass is none too happy about either of them.

Donald J. Trump has managed to insult his way to the top of the still-large GOP heap; U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas antagonized his Senate colleagues to the point that it’s no generally understood that, well, no one on Capitol Hill likes, or even respects, the junior senator.

Republican statesmen, such as Robert Dole, say a Cruz nomination would bring “cataclysmic” losses to the party; it could cost Republicans control of the Senate and bring Democrats within striking distance of getting control of the House.

Aw, but today’s firebrands label the likes of former Sen. Dole as “has been,” “loser,” “RINO.”

That’s their view. It’s not mine.

Trump is now calling himself a conservative. His prior public statements about such things as abortion and universal health care betray his claim, according to so-called “true conservatives.”

But there he is. Looking down from atop the GOP heap. He’s going after Cruz’s eligibility to run for president. He’s feuding with a broadcast journalist. He’s managed to insult Iowa voters, Hispanics, Muslims, our allies abroad, every working politician in Washington, D.C., women, reporters and editors . . . and others I can’t even think of at the moment.

Hey, it’s all OK with those who think Trump is “fresh.”

Wow!

As for Ted Cruz, well, he took his senatorial oath in January 2013 and began hunting for every open microphone he could find. He had his presidential ambitions planned out even before winning a contest in his first political election . . . ever!

He’s trampled over Senate colleagues, broken long-established Senate rules of decorum by calling the body ‘s majority leader a liar. He questioned whether decorated Vietnam War veterans, such as Secretary of State John Kerry and former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, had a true appreciation for the military; and this came from someone who never donned a military uniform!

The Republican Party has a problem, all right.

What will the GOP do? How will it denyĀ either of these men its presidential nomination?

Given that so few of us have ever seen such intraparty angst, I’m afraid the Grand Old Party is on its own.

Good luck, ladies and gents.

 

‘Mano a mano,’ Sen. Cruz?

rs-trump-cruz

So-o-o-o, Ted Cruz wants to take on Donald J. Trump in a one-on-one debate, eh?

He said yesterday he is willing to go “mano a mano” with The Trumpster, a fellow Republican presidential candidate.

The young Republican U.S. senator from Texas is misusing a Spanish phrase that has come to be translated loosely to mean “man to man.”

It actually means “hand to hand.” I would think the son of a Cuban immigrant knows better.

Which means that Cruz is challenging Trump to a fistfight. Or perhapsĀ a fight withĀ clubs. Or brass knuckles.

I get that he means face to face, man to man. But come on, Ted. Say what you mean and mean what you say.

Frankly, I believe I would pay real American money to see these two fellows actually go mano a mano.

 

 

Sanders support may be elusive

90M1ER0H26

A word of caution is due for those who believe U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders has some serious momentum building as he seeks the Democratic presidential nomination.

I’ve seen the polls that show Sanders’ huge base of support among young people. He leads Hillary Clinton by wide margins among voters who are 25 years of age and younger.

That’s the good news — from Sanders’ standpoint.

The bad news? Young people don’t vote with nearly the same intensity as their elders.

I’ve seen the data locally. Potter and Randall County elections officials sent out data that suggest that younger voters didn’t turn out as many folks hoped they wouldĀ in the November municipal election. Older folks turned out — as they usually do.

It’s a pattern we’ve seen over many decades at many political levels. Whether voting for president or mayor or sheriff, young Americans aren’t dedicated to voting.

This is why I remain dubious about the support Sanders and his campaign brass keepĀ hyping as he seeks to peel away the presidential nomination from the one-time prohibitive Democratic Party favorite.

The Iowa caucus is coming up. Sanders said a large turnoutĀ will bode well for his chances. True enough. A large turnout can be made more possible by the participation of young voters.

History, though, isn’t on Sanders’ side.

 

DAI and city part company . . . why?

amadt_main01_r

A whole lot of things go way beyond my ability to understand.

I don’t get Donald Trump’s continuing presence at the top of polls gauging the Republican presidential primary; I don’t understand how scientists are able to calculate when Earth is closest to Mars.

Nor do I understand why Amarillo City Hall and Downtown Amarillo Inc. have said “goodbye” to each other.

DAI executive director Melissa Dailey quit her job on Monday. On Tuesday, the Amarillo City Council ended its financial relationship with the non-profit organization. There will continue to be some kind of relationship, although it’s still to be determined.

I have to ask: How come? Why end a partnership that so far has produced significant movement in the revival of the city’s downtown business district, with more projects yet to come?

Council members spoke well of Dailey and all that occurred on her watch at DAI.

So, then the council decides to end its financial ties to the agency. Interim City Manager Terry Childers spoke of a “new phase” of downtown redevelopment.

I look around the central business district and I see plenty of work that’s already been done. New business has sprouted up. The Fisk Building has been turned into a first-class business hotel.

We’ve got those three huge projects — Embassy Suites, a parking garage, and the SPS office complex — under construction.

I drove to Fritch this morning and sped past the new Coca-Cola distribution center at the business park where relocated from downtown. The old site? It’s going to make way for a downtown ballpark.

All this happened on DAI’s watch . . . on Melissa Dailey’s watch.

She’s gone. DAI’s future now is limbo. City Councilman Randy Burkett referred to it possibly going away in the near future.

Why is the City Hall brass monkeying around with a successful formula for creating a resurgent downtown?

 

 

Who’s afraid of Megyn Kelly?

Donald-Trump_3372655b

The individual who vows to stare down Russian strongman Vladimir Putin while making America “great again”Ā appears to haveĀ come down with a case of the quivers.

Donald J. Trump’s tough talk about how he’ll make Mexico pay for the wall, how he’ll take the oil from the Islamic State and how he’ll make Russia toe the line around the world has backed out of a debate with several other Republican presidential candidates.

His reason? Well, he hasn’t exactly told us.

Trump bails out

He calls one of the debate moderators, Fox News’ Megyn Kelly a “lightweight.” He said she doesn’t like him and then adds that he doesn’t like her, either.

Trump said Kelly was mean to him in that first Fox-sponsored debate when she asked about his views of women.

Trump’s latest stunt has demonstrated beyond a doubt — as he’s done so many times before — that he is totally, utterly and categorically unfit to become the next Leader of the Free World.

How on God’s Earth do we take this guy seriously? I don’t, but hey, that’s no surprise. What still amazesĀ me, though, is that others continue to tell those ubiquitous pollsters how much they love and adore this clown who’s so willing to stick it in the eye of those who adhere to that dreaded “political correctness.”

But he just can’t bring himself to stand in front of an American broadcast journalist and answer tough questions.

Vlad Putin, wherever he is today, is likely laughing out loud . . . at Trump.

 

Trump to skip debate because . . . of moderator

b3df42a8bb48ad237e0f6a7067003b68_c0-0-3452-2012_s885x516

What in the name of all that is petulant do we make of this latest development in one of the strangest political campaigns in anyone’s memory?

Donald J. Trump, the frontrunner for the Republican Party’s presidential nominating campaign, is going to skip a GOP debate coming up Thursday, according to his campaign manager.

Why? He doesn’t like the moderator. He doesn’t think the moderator, Fox News’s Megyn Kelly, will treat him fairly.

It’s all about the moderator.

Trump is demonstrating a level of narcissism that, frankly, takes my breath away.

During the first GOP debate, Kelly started the questioning by asking Trump about some statements he’d made about women. It went downhill from there. In a hurry!

And it hasn’t gotten any better.

Trump now is sounding like a candidate who actually fears a journalist who — during that first debate — was just doing her job.

OK, Trump won’t say he fears Kelly. It just looks that way.

This is astonishing in the extreme. A man who says he wants to become commander in chief of the world’s most powerful military establishment, who wants to become head of state of the world’s most exceptional nation, who wants to tackle the most difficult problems any human being ever can confront is now going to boycott a debate because he doesn’t like the moderator.

Amazing.

I am done projecting that the latest Trump stunt spells the end of his campaign. I thought that moment had come many times before, only to be proven wrong by those poll numbers and the so-called “loyalty” of Trump’s supporters.

They have confounded almost everyone with an interest in this presidential campaign.

Me included.

Trump is fond of calling his opponents and critics “losers.”

He now wears that label himself. My guess is that he’s so very proud of himself. For what? For chickening out of facing difficult questions from a broadcast journalist.

 

Downtown’s future takes a hit

downtownamarilloinc1

They’re messing with an agency with a mission to improve downtown Amarillo’s fortunes.

Just the other day came word that interim Amarillo City Manager Terry Childers is considering moving some of Downtown Amarillo Inc.’s economic development duties to an office in City Hall.

My question then was: Why mess with success, given all the good that has happened downtown while DAI has been on task?

Now comes the latest boulder to get tossed into the machinery. DAI executive director Melissa Dailey has resigned.

I’ll admit that I’m not privy to Dailey’s reasoning, but the timing of her resignation — which the DAI board accepted unanimously — suggests some relationship to what the city manager is considering.

DAI board president John Lutz saidĀ that downtown’s future is “bigger than one person.” Fair enough.

Still, this isn’t good news for the city.

I’m not entirely clear about all the issues surrounding Dailey’s tenure at DAI. I’d heard some of the grumbling from those who blame Dailey directly for the Wallace Bajjali fiasco. Yes, Wallace Bajjali turned out to be all hat and no cattle with regard to downtown revival efforts here, but the breakup of the master development company didn’t bankrupt the city.

The two company principals had a huge falling out. One of them, David Wallace, has filed for personal bankruptcy. So they’re gone. Good riddance.

Has downtown’s movement slowed? No. Does DAI deserve to be castigated over the work that’s been done so far? Hardly. It has done well — and so has Dailey. The proof can be seen throughout the downtown district.

However, the non-profit agency now appears to be a target. My strong hunch is that Dailey didn’t want to become collateral damage if the city decides to revamp DAI’s mission.

The city is messing with success.

 

Bernie channels Fritz Mondale

102694294-472283274.530x298

U.S. Sen. Bernie SandersĀ made a pledge last night at the CNN-sponsored Democratic Presidential Candidate Town Hall Forum.

The self-proclaimed “democratic socialist” said he will “raise taxes” to pay for his universal health insurance plan if he’s elected president of the United States.

Interesting, you know?

Here’s why.

The last national politician I can remember who made such a promise was the 1984 Democratic nominee for president, former Vice President Walter F. Mondale.

He stood before the party convention, accepted his party’s nomination and then said that President Ronald Reagan (against whom he ran that year) also will raise taxes. “He won’t tell you; I just did.”

I recall liking Mondale’s honesty at the time. It struck me that it was a bold statement to make.

But how well did it play with American voters that fall?

Not well . . . at all.

The president pulled in 59 percent of the popular vote; he beat Mondale by about 17 million ballots; President ReaganĀ won 525 electoral votes; what’s more, he came within about 2,000 votes of winning all 50 states, losing only Mondale’s home state of Minnesota.

Promising to raise taxes never is a good idea, Sen. Sanders.

 

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience