Tea party fights back, ousts (gulp!) Rep. Cantor

My bad.

I’ve been among those who’ve talked openly about the seeming demise of the tea party wing of the Republican Party everywhere but in Texas.

Oops. Something really, really weird has happened back in Ol’ Virginny. U.S. Rep. Eric Cantor, the No. 2 Republican in the House of Reps and someone who knows the tea party playbook by heart, has been beaten for re-election by a first-time candidate for any public office.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/eric-cantor-primary-election-results-virginia-107683.html?hp=t1

Dave Brat is now the Republican nominee for Congress from the Richmond, Va., area.

Cantor was thought to be the next speaker of the House once John Boehner decided he’d had enough fun in Congress. Cantor also was known to be a staunch conservative lawmaker.

No one saw this coming. No one predicted Cantor would lose. No one even predicted even a close race. It turns out it wasn’t that close after all; the challenger won with a comfortable margin, for crying out loud.

I’m going to take some time now to catch my breath and try to understand what this means to the congressional political balance of power.

If I were Speaker Boehner, I just might start thinking even more seriously about quitting. He’s griped already about how the tea party wing of his GOP House caucus is making his life so miserable. Well, Mr. Speaker, it’s going to get really nasty.

New poll: O.J. did it

Time has a way of healing wounds, they say. It also has a way of changing hearts and minds, apparently.

A new CNN poll says that most African-Americans now believe O.J. Simpson killed his former wife and her friend in that gruesome knife attack 20 years ago.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/06/09/majority-of-african-americans-now-say-simpson-was-guilty/?hpt=hp_t2

The poll was done by CNN/ORC International, a reputable polling outfit.

So, why the change in heart?

A couple of things come to mind.

* A new generation of Americans has come along since the so-called “trial of the century” acquitted Simpson after an eight-month circus act in that Los Angeles Superior courtroom. You’ll recall the video recorded reaction to the acquittal, which a jury reached after just four hours of deliberation.

White Americans were crushed; African-Americans were jubilant. Many white Americans sobbed; African-Americans cheered, laughed, high-fived and embraced.

The state of race relations wasn’t good in southern California at the time, you’ll also remember. A black man, Rodney King, was beaten senseless by some white police officers, who then were acquitted of wrong-doing in that beat down. The verdict enraged African-Americans, who then rioted.

Three years later came the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman.

O.J. went on trial and the rest is history, correct?

That brings me to the second reason for the change in attitudes.

* Despite the jubilation felt in the African-American community over Simpson’s acquittal, it became immediately clear that Simpson was not going to give back any of the love and affection he felt from his fellow African-Americans. He sought to return immediately to the life he enjoyed prior to the murder. Did he avail himself to troubled black youth, or did he work as a violence counselor with minorities? No. Was he a high-profile presence at, say United Negro College Fund events or at NAACP gatherings? Nope.

He played golf at exclusive courses and sought to ingratiate himself with gambling interests.

How do you think that looked to those who cheered his acquittal? I’m betting it didn’t look good at all.

He ended up getting sued in civil court by the Goldman family, who won a multimillion-dollar settlement after a jury determined Simpson was responsible for the deaths of Nicole and Goldman. And after that? He was arrested for assault in a case involving the recovery of some keepsake items. Another jury convicted him of that crime and sent him to prison, where he remains to this day.

And remember when Simpson said he would move heaven and Earth to find the “real killers”? He had the chance before getting tossed into the slammer. I’d bet real money he didn’t lift a finger.

HRC's second-most surprising comment …

Having already declared surprise that the Benghazi flap would encourage Hillary Clinton to run for president, I’ve found perhaps the second-most interesting thing she said in that TV interview that aired Monday night.

It’s what she didn’t say.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/208757-clinton-doesnt-deny-narcissistic-looney-tune-comments

ABC News’s Diane Sawyer asked Clinton about a comment she made about Monica Lewinsky — you remember, yes? — in which she was quoted as calling “that woman” a “narcissistic loony tune.” Clinton’s response? “I am not going to comment on what I said or didn’t say in the late 1990s,” she said.

There it is. She said it.

Frankly, I have to agree with that description … not that it excuses her husband’s behavior, and that’s all I’ll say about that.

Sawyer then noted that Republican U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has said that the Lewinsky scandal that resulted in the impeachment of President Clinton is fair game if Hillary Clinton runs for president in two years.

“You know, he can talk about what he wants to talk about. And if he decides to run, he’ll be fair game too for everybody,” she said. I’m reminded a bit of what the late U.S. Rep. Charlie Wilson, D-Lufkin, once said about an opponent who kept bringing up negative aspects of Wilson’s admittedly flamboyant lifestyle. “I have never initiated a negative campaign,” Wilson told me, “but if my opponent keeps saying those things, I’ll be prepared to respond.” Brother, did he ever.

Message to Sen. Paul? Be very careful if you intend to go there.

Clinton goes big league

Of all the things Hillary Rodham Clinton said tonight in her TV interview with Diane Sawyer, the most surprising statement came in response to a question about the Sept. 11, 2012 fire fight at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

Sawyer asked about the criticism then-Secretary of State Clinton has gotten over her handling of that tragic event and whether it might dissuade her from running for president in 2016. Her answer?

“Actually, it’s more of a reason to run, because I do not believe our great country should be playing minor league ball,” Clinton said, according to a transcript. β€œWe ought to be in the majors.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/hillary-clinton-bowe-benghazi-107626.html?hp=l3

Well. There you have it.

For an hour, Clinton sounded for all the world like a probable candidate for president of the United States in two years. She was coy when she needed to be, evasive at other times during the interview, occasionally candid.

The Benghazi statement, though, caught me by surprise. I guess I shouldn’t have been, but the strength of her answer suggests to me that she clearly is leaning toward another national campaign.

Benghazi has been kicked all over the political football field. The House of Representatives is going to convene a select committee soon to conduct more hearings on the event in which four men, including our ambassador to Libya, were killed by militants who stormed the consulate.

What have all the previous hearings accomplished, other than to suggest that there’s no “there, there” in the search for some kind of politically fatal wound that would bring down a Hillary Clinton presidential candidacy? Nothing.

Clinton’s point tonight is that Congress needs to focus on oh, job creation, infrastructure improvements, world peace and other things vastly more relevant than trying to find some way to lay blame for what everyone in the world knows was a tragedy.

The nation already has implemented changes to improve embassy security around the world. It already has mourned the deaths of those brave American diplomats and staffers. Isn’t that sufficient? I guess not.

Later this year, we’ll get to watch Congress re-plow much of the ground it’s already turned over.

What’s more, we’ll also are even more likely to see Hillary Rodham Clinton run for president of the United States.

Obama, Clinton set to lock arms?

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s probable campaign for the presidency is putting the man in whose administration she once worked into a complicated bind.

President Barack Obama clearly wants a Democrat to succeed him on Jan. 20, 2017 when the new president takes the oath of office. It’s been reported repeatedly that Obama and Clinton have developed a complicated relationship.

It once was testy, such as when they campaign against each other for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. Sen. Obama then said to Sen. Clinton, “You’re likable enough, Hillary.” Obama then won the presidency and appointed her as secretary of state.

It was then that she swallowed the Obama Kool-Aid, so to speak, and endorsed his foreign policy initiatives.

Now she’s back in “private life,” if you want to call it that. She’s written a book and is embarking on a nationwide book-promotion tour for “Hard Choices.” One of those choices might be to put some daylight between her world view and the view shared by her former political benefactor, the president.

Obama, Clinton start ’16 dance

And … oh, yes, the president’s complications get even more so. He has this vice president, Joe Biden, who also is thought to want to run for president. Vice President Biden has been indispensable at times, helping broker budget deals with his Senate pals and offering advice on a wide range of foreign policy issues and/or crises.

Their relationship also has been up and down as well. Still, Biden is the No. 2 man in the Obama administration.

Does the president choose between two of his most high-profile associates? How does he pick one while throwing the other one over? If it’s Clinton over Biden, how does the vice president continue to serve loyally and speak out publicly for the president? If it’s Biden over Clinton, how does the president deal with Hillary’s husband, the formidable 42nd president of the United States and one of the more effective surrogates Obama has employed on occasion?

It’s getting crowded at the top of the Democratic Party political pecking order.

What's in a name, Sen. Van de Putte?

The Texas Tribune reports that state Sen. Leticia Van de Putte has a name identification issue.

She’s a Hispanic seeking to appeal to voters of similar ethnic persuasion. She doesn’t have a Hispanic name, however.

To counter that, she’s known to pepper her stump speeches while campaigning for Texas lieutenant governor with Spanish.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/06/08/van-de-putte-surname-could-be-challenge-hispanics/

This is part of Van de Putte’s uphill climb to become the first Democratic lieutenant governor since Bob Bullock. Her foe in the November election is Republican state Sen. Dan Patrick, who defeated incumbent David Dewhurst in a bitter GOP runoff.

A candidate’s name is important in Texas politics. We’ve seen Hispanic candidates lose to less-qualified opponents simply because of their name. We occasionally see candidates appear on a ballot sporting famous — even legendary — Texas names. A guy named Sam Houston, for example, is running as a Democrat this year for state attorney general.

Van de Putte, though, wants to use her ethnicity to her advantage. With a large — and growing — Hispanic population voting overwhelmingly in her party’s favor, Van de Putte wants to mine that large reservoir of potential voters.

However, Van de Putte is walking a precarious tightrope. According to the Tribune: “In a recent interview, Van de Putte said it would be disrespectful to voters and Hispanics if she played up her heritage for political gain, and that she only intends to be genuine about her background despite perceptions of it being used as an outreach strategy.

β€œ’It’s not a conscious effort to emphasize or play up my heritage,’ Van de Putte said. β€œIt’s who I am.’”

What’s in a name? Plenty.

Fourth night, more rain

For as much I used to bitch about the weather while growing up in rainy, damp, dank, dark, Portland, Ore., I’m really loving this rainy, damp, dank, dark weather here on the High Plains of the Texas Panhandle.

You see, this is not normal here.

Normal weather bores me to tears. I got bored and disgusted with all that rain back in my hometown. In my current hometown, Amarillo, I’ve grown bored and disgusted with the incessant, relentless sunshine.

Oh, have I mentioned the wind that blows constantly around here?

It’ll take some time for me to grow bored with this moisture. Heaven knows we’ve all prayed our brains out for it to arrive.

I’ve heard some good news about Lake Meredith, about how the Canadian River is actually flowing and that it’s dumping water into the lake. I see the playas — particularly McDonald Lake up the street from our home — filling with water almost to overflowing.

How can I complain about that? Given the drought we’ve had for seemingly forever, you won’t hear a discouraging word from me.

It’ll take some time for me to become bored with this rain.

Keep it coming.

Next up in tea party sights: Sen. Graham

Lindsey Graham might be the next sitting Republican U.S. senator headed to a runoff courtesy of a tea party challenge from his right.

Last week we saw Mississippi U.S. Sen. Thad Cochran forced into a runoff with challenger Chris McDaniel. The smart money, such as it is, says Cochran’s in trouble in the June 24 runoff. McDaniel is well-positioned to knock off the six-term Republican incumbent, who the tea party says isn’t conservative enough for Mississippians.

Instead, the Mississippi Republicans may nominate someone backed by fanatics who broke into a nursing home where Cochran’s wife has lived for more than a decade and who sought to produce an anti-Cochran campaign video that included images of his bed-ridden wife. Disgusting.

And what about Graham, another conservative who’s been deemed too squishy because he has the audacity to work across the aisle at times? Why, that turncoat even has supported some of President Obama’s judicial nominees, which angers the tea party faction in South Carolina to no end.

He’s got a boatload of challengers. The South Carolina GOP primary is Tuesday. The question there is whether Graham can be re-nominated without having to go to a runoff. If he doesn’t get the requisite 50-percent majority, can he prevail in a runoff in which the turnout usually is a whole lot lower than it is in the primary?

This is big news just about everywhere, it seems, but Texas. The tea party wing of the GOP is running strong here, so it’s no big deal to see “establishment” incumbents getting thumped.

Elsewhere? That’s another matter.

Stay tuned for the latest drama to play out Tuesday in South Carolina.

'Incomprehensible' to leave soldier behind

Secretary of State John Kerry couldn’t be more correct in validating the decision to bring Bowe Bergdahl home from his Taliban captivity.

“What I know today is what the president of the United States knows, that it would have been offensive and incomprehensible to consciously leave an American behind, no matter what, to leave an American behind in the hands of people who would torture him, cut of his head, do any number of things,” he said in an interview with CNN. “And we would consciously choose to do that? That’s the other side of this equation. I don’t think anybody would think that’s an appropriate thing to do.”

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/208598-kerry-released-gitmo-detainees-could-return-to-fight

The debate over Sgt. Bergdahl’s release is raging. I, too, have questions about it. I want to know if he deserted his post. I want to understand the circumstances surrounding his captivity.

We’ll get those answers in due course.

However, the notion that Americans might consciously leave someone behind as we wind down our war effort in Afghanistan chills me to the bone. Yet some of Bergdahl’s harshest critics have pronounced him guilty of treason — without due process — and said that a traitor should be left to rot.

It’s clear the Obama administration mishandled many aspects of this matter. It’s been a public relations nightmare.

The bottom line, though, is that an American soldier is safe.

If he did something wrong, then let the military adjudicate it.

It's official: Texas GOP has gone mad

This idea might not be a flash for some folks, but it is to me.

The Texas Republican Party has officially flipped its wig, gone bananas, become certifiably insane by adopting a plank it its party platform that endorses the notion that gay people can be made un-gay by something called “reparative therapy.”

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/texas-gop-endorses-reparative-therapy-gays-n125471

The Texas GOP has concluded its meeting in Fort Worth. It came down hard on a lot of policy issues dealing with immigration, abortion and climate change. They disagree with Democrats on all those things. I get that.

It’s the idea, though, that gay folks can be counseled away from their orientation that simply blows my ever-loving mind.

I say this as a heterosexual male who never once — at any time in my life — decided I would prefer to be intimate with females.

And it’s that understanding of human sexuality that simply makes this Republican Party platform plank so difficult to accept.

Of all the gay people I’ve ever known or read about, never have I heard of someone choosing to be scorned, vilified, demonized, insulted, assaulted or otherwise denigrated because they choose to love someone of the same sex.

According to the Texas Republican Party, however, “reparative therapy” suggests that homosexuality is a preferred lifestyle rather than an orientation to which someone is born. The platform plank adopted by the GOP says that the party recognizes “the legitimacy and efficacy of counseling, which offers reparative therapy and treatment for those patients seeking healing and wholeness from their homosexual lifestyle.”

There you have it.

The Republican Party of Texas has slammed itself into reverse and is heading into the Dark Ages.

Amazing.

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience