International news

Commies are getting a taste of dissent

castro bros

Cuba’s ruling communists are getting a snoot full from the proletariat.

They’re unhappy with the way the commies are governing the country and are beginning to speak their minds. Even the commies themselves are griping openly.

The discontent comes in the wake of President Obama’s historic visit to Cuba, where he talked out loud about the virtues of freedom of expression and how everyone deserves the chance to express their grievances over the way the government is doing its job on the people’s behalf.

According to The Associated Press: “After months of simmering discontent, complaints among party members have become so heated that its official newspaper, Granma, addressed them in a lengthy front-page article Monday, saying the public dissatisfaction is ‘a sign of the democracy and public participation that are intrinsic characteristics of the socialism that we’re constructing.'”

How about that?

Dissent isn’t a bad thing, at least that’s how it’s viewed in societies that allow it.

Such open grumbling has been virtually unheard-of in nations such as Cuba, where the communists took over a government run by an iron-fisted dictator. The revolutionaries led by Fidel Castro promised “change” in Cuba. They delivered it, all right … except that it looked a lot like the old way, only under the communist banner rather than the fascist banner waved by the preceding governing authority.

The U.S. president brought attention to the need for greater freedom. Cubans responded enthusiastically to his message.

Now, even the communists who run the place are griping about what a lousy job they’re doing.

Ah, change is in the wind in Cuba.

Perhaps …

 

national news, political news

GOP cannibalism now under way

trump

Somehow, you just knew this would happen.

Back when there were many more Republican Party candidates for president, they all signed a “pledge” to back whoever the party nominates.

That was then. Now that we’re down to just three men standing, they all now are going back on their pledge. As noted Republican analyst Matthew Dowd said this morning on “Good Morning America,” he never considered the pledge to be “the Magna Carta,” meaning he’s not surprised that the candidates are walking back their pledge of support for the other guy.

Well, this is a byproduct of what has been the least dignified presidential campaign in memory — if not in history.

Donald J. Trump said the Republican Party has “treated me very unfairly.” The frontrunner is mad because the GOP brass doesn’t want him to be the nominee and is staying up into the wee hours concocting a scenario that would deny him the nomination at the party convention this summer in Cleveland.

Rafael Edward Cruz has said he is “not in the habit” of supporting candidates who attack his family, which the frontrunner — Trump — has done.

John Kasich is no fan of either of the other guys. He especially appears to detest Trump and has said — almost categorically — that the frontrunner won’t get his support if he’s the nominee. As for Cruz, should he be the nominee, a Kasich endorsement also sounds a bit iffy.

Trump, to no one’s surprise, said he never “pledged” anything. I guess that picture of him holding up that document in which he signed his name was a mirage.

A friend of mine reminded me this morning of something a prominent Texas Panhandle politician used to say about how Republicans treat each other. They resort to a form of cannibalism.

The comment came from the late state Sen. Teel Bivins of Amarillo, who used to joke that redistricting, which the Texas Legislature performs every decade after the census is taken, is when “Republicans eat their young.”

He said he hated the redistricting process. “Sure you do, Teel,” I would tell him. He just couldn’t stop doing it.

Are we seeing the three remaining GOP presidential candidates “eat” each other? They just might take this intense dislike with them to that convention in Ohio late this year.

Bon apetit, gentlemen.

media news, national news, political news

Speaking of polls, take a look at this

PollingFundamentals

Now that public opinion polls have become a staple of American political coverage, it’s good to look at the latest survey of Americans’ views of the job the president is doing.

RealClearPolitics posts a national average of polls daily.

The numbers are instructive.

President Obama now stands at 2.7 percent approval-over-disapproval in the average of polls that RCP posts.

Why is this important? It’s important because most of the remaining candidates for president — Republican and Democrat — keep talking about polls and their relative standing among them.

Donald J. Trump bellows constantly when the polls show him beating fellow Republicans Ted Cruz or John Kasich. Cruz counters with favorable poll reports when they suit his cause. Kasich keeps saying the polls show him as the only GOP candidate who can beat Hillary Clinton.

Oh yes. Bernie Sanders keeps talking about the polls that show him “closing the gap” for the Democratic nomination with Clinton.

Polls, polls, polls …

Remember when pols said “the only poll that counts is on Election Day”? Not only longer. They keep yapping about the polls and the media keep reporting it.

Thus, they have become important.

Back to the RCP poll average.

President Obama’s poll ratings had been in the tank for most of his second term. They weren’t necessarily horrible; just flat, lingering in the mid-40 percent range. What’s most interesting is that his favorable ratings were usually significantly less than his unfavorable ratings.

Today, though, it’s different. His favorability rating, according to the RCP average, stands at 49 percent, nearly 3 percent greater than his unfavorable rating.

Two more quick points.

One is that the RCP average takes into account all the major polling results done. Conservative polling outfits are measured, along with liberal polling companies. They’re tossed in altogether and you get the average of all the polls.

The second point is that RCP’s average of polls about the job Congress is doing shows a 14 percent job approval rating.

 

 

media news, national news, political news

Media should challenge pols? Sure, except for one thing …

BBr384Y

President Obama has thrown down on the national media, which he said aren’t doing their job properly.

The current political climate, the president said, is due partly because the media haven’t challenged presidential candidates’ falsehoods, outrageousness and manipulation.

Obama spoke to a media gathering and said the rest of the world is dumbfounded at what’s happening to the “crazy politics” that has infected the United States.

Hold ’em accountable

Here’s part of what the president said: “A job well done is about more than just handing someone a microphone. It’s to probe and to question and to dig deeper and to demand more. The electorate would be better served if that happened. It would be better served if billions of dollars in free media came with serious accountability, especially when politicians issue unworkable plans or make promises they cannot keep.”

Got it, Mr. President.

But here’s the catch. The media are considered part of what’s ticking off much of the electorate.

The media have sought to hold the candidates “accountable,” as you suggest. They have challenge absurd assertions by a number of the candidates, only to be outshouted by the angry legions of voters who continue to stand by their candidates’ original absurd assertion.

As someone who’s still associated with the media, I happen to believe the president is correct to assert that the media need to do better. We always can do more to provide context and to check all the facts before running with them.

It’s the suggestion, though, that greater media scrutiny — in this particular climate — is going to flip the switch on in voters’ minds and make them see the light, the truth and the way.

Instead, they’re increasingly likely these days to “double down” on what the candidate says and then blast the media for “lying” about their guy’s message.

I believe we are in a classic “Catch-22” situation.

Thanks anyway for the advice, Mr. President.

local news, media news, political news

Feeling unchained these days

WorkingMediaImage

I had a marvelous opportunity this evening to speak to some nice folks about the state of play in media, politics, and the world in general.

The Potter/Randall Democratic Club asked me to offer some observations about this and that.

They figured I needed something to do now that I’ve been kinda/sorta retired for more than three years. A number of the folks there are acquaintances of mine. A couple of them were contributors to the Amarillo Globe-News opinion pages over the years, writing letters and sending in guest columns for my consideration.

I truly enjoyed meeting new folks and getting reacquainted with old friends and sharing some thoughts about the condition of our political and public policy world.

It occurred to me as I began my remarks that one of the true joys about being able to speak for myself is that I no longer represent someone or something else. I no longer am on a media outlet’s payroll, which enables me to speak my mind and to offer thoughts on this blog.

Sure, I do write for a couple of broadcast outlets these days; I write part time as a freelancer for KFDA NewsChannel 10 and Panhandle PBS, which means that I am not counted as being employed by them.

It occurred to me as I began my remarks that I am officially unfettered, untethered, unencumbered, unleashed, unbound, unrestricted, uninhibited … well, you get the idea. I get to speak my mind — whether I’m standing at a podium or offering comments through this blog.

Sure, my career as a full-time print journalist ended unhappily for me back in August 2012. I wasn’t entirely sure at the very moment I realized my career had ended whether I could bounce back. I did manage to pick myself up; I got off the deck and along the way I discovered a side of my adaptability I didn’t realize I possessed.

Thus, am I now glad my tenure at the Globe-News came to a screeching halt?

You bet I am.

national news, political news

Al Franken for VP? Let’s think about this

franken

Al Franken for vice president?

Oh boy. It’s almost too hilarious to consider. Then again, so was Donald J. Trump’s presidential candidacy once thought of as a side-splitting joke.

Bill Scher, writing for Politico, thinks the political dynamics have been thrown into the drink with Trump’s frontrunning GOP presidential campaign.

So, according to Scher, Hillary Clinton needs to think seriously about appointing the man who gained fame as Stuart Smalley, the “Saturday Night Live” character who turned melodramatic modesty into an art form.

Franken now has a serious job, as a U.S. senator from Minnesota.

His committee hearing questioning of witnesses can be hilarious. He also makes serious points.

Franken is an unapologetic populist. He’s also backing Clinton, rather than Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Scher’s point in pushing Franken out front as a potential VP nominee is that Trump has changed the political calculus at every level. Franken would be seen as every bit as serious as Trump … which isn’t saying much, given that Trump’s circus act has turned the GOP campaign into a markedly unserious endeavor.

I am not in favor of promoting candidates for high public office for the sake of doing something brash and unthinkable. I like Sen. Franken. He’s a solid family man and a damn funny comedian. He writes great jokes, which he did for many years before becoming an on-camera sensation with “SNL.”

The question keeps popping into my head: Is Al “Stuart Smalley” Franken ready to become president if he is forced to assume that office?

My heart wants to say “yes.” My head says “no.”

As for Donald J. Trump, every fiber of my being tells me he is unsuited at every level imaginable for the office he is seeking.

 

International news

Pipe down, Fidel; your time is up

fidel

Fidel Castro apparently holds a grudge.

The former strongman/dictator/supreme leader of Cuba isn’t quite so keen on President Obama’s recent visit to the nation.

While many of Cuba’s current leaders — such as Fidel’s brother, Raul, the country’s current strongman/dictator etc. — have expressed pleasure at Obama’s visit, ol’ Fidel isn’t quite so enamored of the idea.

He lambasted President Obama’s visit, saying that Cuba doesn’t need gifts from “the empire” to succeed.

Obama didn’t visit Fidel while he was in Cuba. Perhaps if he had he could have charmed the irascible revolutionary leader who came to power in 1959 and only recently handed the reins of government over to his kid brother Raul.

Fidel Castro’s ironfisted rule outlasted 10 U.S. presidential administrations. All of them, until the current president, had decided to maintain the economic and diplomatic embargo on Cuba.

I agree with Fidel that the embargo was useless and irrelevant during the last quarter-century of its existence. Its practicality disappeared along with the Soviet Union in 1991; in truth, it really wasn’t a viable option for the United States predating that event.

It’s weird, though, to wonder why Fidel Castro isn’t yet willing to bury the hatchet in his on-going conflict with the United States.

Settle down, El Comandante. Life is going to get better in your nation now that we’ve resumed travel, trade and communication with Cuba. For that, you should be grateful.

 

national news, political news, religious news

Ga. governor vetoes anti-LGBT law … yes!

religious-exemptions-georgia

Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal has done the right thing by vetoing House Bill 757, which sought to give faith-based business owners the option of denying jobs and services to gays, bisexuals and transgendered individuals.

Those who supported the bill said it protects religious liberty. Those who oppose it said it discriminates needlessly against Americans who shouldn’t be denied their rights as citizens.

There had been reports of pressure being applied by HB 757 foes who said the bill could result in the loss of business and jobs in Georgia.

I’m glad the anti-bill folks won this argument.

Gov. Deal, a Republican, denied he was reacting to pressure from either or both sides of the divide. According to CNN: His decision, he said, was “about the character of our state and the character of our people. Georgia is a welcoming state. It is full of loving, kind and generous people. … I intend to do my part to keep it that way. For that reason I will veto House Bill 757.”

I accept that rationale for doing the right thing by the residents of his state who comprise the whole range of humanity — and all sexual orientations.

One of the more fascinating responses to this doing-business-with-gay-people came not long ago from Ohio Gov. John Kasich, one of three men running for the Republican presidential nomination.

During a debate with the other candidates, the question came to Kasich about legislation allowing business owners to deny serving gay individuals or gay couples. Kasich’s response was about as compassionate as it gets.

He said he believes in “traditional marriage,” but said that those who are in business of serving the public need to understand the differences among all people. Some of those differences involve sexual orientation.

He said that if he were put in that position as a business owner, he would serve a gay individual or a gay couple and then would “pray for them” — privately, seeking his own counsel with God.

I hope that’s part of the complexities of the issue that has driven Gov. Deal to veto this bill approved by his state’s legislature.

Let’s not seek to interpret what is in one man’s heart and soul.

Whatever the reasons, Deal knows what they are. His veto speaks volumes all by itself.

media news, national news, political news

‘Shame,’ ’embarrassment’ become campaign themes

dontvotefortheotherguy

Oh, for shame!

The remaining men vying for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination appear to have become embarrassments to the very people whose support they will need this fall when one of them square off against the Democratic Party presidential nominee.

What in the world has become of the process that selects major-party nominees seeking to become the most powerful officeholder in the whole world?

It has become a sideshow, a circus act, a schoolyard fight, a proverbial food fight.

Voters should demand better of the candidates. Then again, perhaps they secretly like what they’re hearing and seeing.

The Republican side of this carnival act has been particularly disgraceful. And that is coming from Republicans who’ve watched it.

GOP pollster Frank Luntz asked viewers who watched one of the Republican debates, the one in Detroit, to summarize what they saw. The Washington Post reported: “Sophomoric,” “embarrassment,” “disappointing,” “shameful,” “despicable,” “angering” and “schoolyard brawl” were some of the responses he received during a broadcast on Fox News Channel.

As one Republican told the Post — and this guy is a Ted Cruz supporter — the candidates need to be talking about ISIS and the “loss of freedom.”

Instead, he noted, they were engaging in the kind of talk one hears on junior high school playgrounds.

Who and/or what is the culprit?

Have social media become the communications vehicle of choice for too many Americans? We appear to be relying on Twitter feeds and Facebook posts to learn things — most of it irrelevant to actual policy — about these candidates.

Have their been too many of these Republican and Democratic primary debates? It might be that the candidates have run out of creative ways to argue the fine points of policy and have been left to resort to the kind of shameful name-calling and ridicule we’ve been hearing.

Do the candidates themselves deserve blame? Pundits keep talking about Donald J. Trump’s lack of depth and his mastery of media manipulation. Then there’s the belief among many that he is a barely closeted sexist, xenophobe and racist. The response from Ted Cruz to Trump’s insults has been, well, less than stellar as well.

The campaign should have been dignified. It has been everything except that.

These individuals are seeking to become commander in chief of the world’s greatest military machine. They want to become head of state of what many of us believe is the greatest nation ever created. They seek to lead a nation of 300-plus million citizens into a still-uncertain future.

And this is what we’re getting?

 

national news, political news, State news

Cruz gets fascinating Texas endorsement

dewhurst

Say what you will about Chris Christie and Ben Carson endorsing Donald J. Trump after Trump trashed both of them during their joint Republican presidential primary run.

Ted Cruz of Texas has just scored a fascinating endorsement as well from a fellow former competitor. Only this guy didn’t run against him in this year’s GOP presidential primary. Oh, no! This fellow was the original foe to get “Cruzed,” as some of us in Texas have said about the treatment he got from the junior U.S. senator.

Former Texas Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst is backing the Cruz Missile.

This endorsement might not have the legs it does in Texas. Take it from me: This is a big deal.

Cruz decided in 2011 to run for the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Kay Bailey Hutchison. The prohibitive favorite to succeed her was Dewhurst. He had served well as lieutenant governor and as land commissioner before that. He had lots of money and lots of political connections, dating back to his pre-public service career as a mover and shaker in the Houston area.

Dewhurst backs former foe

Then he ran into the Ted Cruz buzz saw.

Cruz campaigned against Dewhurst more or less the way he has campaigned for the presidency: He cast Dewhurst as part of the Texas political establishment and promised to change the climate if Texans elected him to the Senate.

He called Dewhurst a dreaded “moderate” because he managed to work pretty well with Texas Senate Democrats while presiding as lieutenant governor over the upper legislative chamber. To the ears of Texas Republican primary voters, he might as well have called Dewhurst a child molester.

Dewhurst responded by trying to outflank Cruz on the right, which is pretty damn hard to do, given Cruz’s reputation as a far-right TEA Party golden boy.

It didn’t work for Dewhurst. Cruz beat him in the primary.

Dewhurst, though, has forgiven Cruz for the rough treatment he got.

Will any of that matter down the road? It’s interesting to me that Dewhurst decided to endorse Cruz now … nearly a month after the state held its primary elections.

Cruz already has won the Texas primary.

Don’t look for Dewhurst to campaign much for his new best friend Ted Cruz as the primary campaign continues its journey. For the rest of the country, the rangy former Texas lieutenant governor’s rhetoric endorsing Ted Cruz won’t mean much.

It does speak, though, to how political wounds manage to heal.

Dewhurst can boast, I suppose, of being the first of Ted Cruz’s political victims — which grants him a fascinating, if somewhat dubious honor.

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience