political news, State news

'Wheelchair Ad' all about the visual

Let’s call it the “Wheelchair Ad.”

It’s gotten a lot of attention in recent days. It’s a 30-second TV political ad that shows an empty wheelchair with a voice that talks about how Republican Texas governor nominee Greg Abbott was injured in a freak accident, paralyzed and how he sued to win millions of dollars in a settlement; it then goes on to accuse Abbott of working against Texans seeking similar justice.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/10/12/davis-pollster-wheelchair-ad-working-despite-criti/

The ad was approved by the campaign of Democratic governor nominee Wendy Davis, whose pollster said the ad is working in Davis’s favor.

Maybe so. Maybe not.

If the candidate had asked my opinion, I would have counseled her against using the wheelchair.

Apparently that is the crux of the criticism coming Davis’s way. I haven’t heard anyone actually contest the facts stated in the ad, but they are talking openly about the wheelchair, saying the ad is a low blow in what figures to be a bruising battle to the end of this contentious governor’s race.

My sense is that Davis’s campaign could have said all the things mentioned in the ad without the wheelchair. The campaign, though, chose to use the wheelchair I suppose to highlight the obvious — which is that the Republican attorney general is confined to a wheelchair as a result of the tree falling on Abbott when he was in his mid-20s.

I don’t have a particular problem with mentioning that Abbott is paralyzed. His own campaign has highlighted that fact in ads of its own. It’s just that troubling image of the wheelchair that has given Abbott grist to accuse Davis of attacking “a guy in a wheelchair.”

Election Day is only about three weeks away — and they might turn out to be the longest three weeks of our lives.

national news, political news

Krugman comes to Obama's defense

Paul Krugman isn’t exactly an impartial observer of American politics.

He leans hard left. He writes for the New York Times and other publications. He’s also an Nobel prize-winning economist who knows a thing or three about economics.

He also has determined that Barack Obama has crafted one of the most successful presidencies in American history.

http://www.lovebscott.com/news/rolling-stone-names-president-obama-one-of-the-most-successful-presidents-in-american-history

Go figure that one, eh?

Well, I’ll await the judgment of more historians on the Obama presidency, which still has about 26 months left before he leaves the White House.

Krugman has written a lengthy essay in Rolling Stone in which he lays out his case for the success of President Obama’s time in office.

Here’s a small part of what Krugman has written:

“Obama faces trash talk left, right and center – literally – and doesn’t deserve it. Despite bitter opposition, despite having come close to self-inflicted disaster, Obama has emerged as one of the most consequential and, yes, successful presidents in American history. His health reform is imperfect but still a huge step forward – and it’s working better than anyone expected. Financial reform fell far short of what should have happened, but it’s much more effective than you’d think. Economic management has been half-crippled by Republican obstruction, but has nonetheless been much better than in other advanced countries. And environmental policy is starting to look like it could be a major legacy.”

I get that Krugman has his critics. They sit on the opposite end of the political spectrum. They’re going to dismiss his assessment of Obama’s presidency through their own bias, contending that Krugman’s bias has tainted his own view.

Funny thing about bias. We always see it in others, never in ourselves.

I must acknowledge this much, even though it pains my friends on the right whenever we lefties bring it up: Barack Obama inherited a first-class financial and economic meltdown when he took the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2009. He took measures almost immediately to stop the free fall. The government pumped billions of dollars into bailing out auto manufacturers; it slapped important regulations on lending institutions that had loaned money to millions of Americans who couldn’t afford to pay the money back.

All of this drew stinging rebukes from Republicans, who didn’t offer any serious solutions of their own — except to say that the president’s initiatives would fail.

Health care? Oh yes. There’s that. As Krugman notes, the Affordable Care Act isn’t perfect, but it’s working.

I’ll look forward to reading the entire article. I’ll still hold my own final judgment on Barack Obama’s presidency. We need some time to take it all in.

local news, political news

This responder spews rubbish so well

I don’t think I’ve done this before, but I want to offer a brief tribute to someone who has taken me to task on a blog I recently posted.

Here’s the blog:

https://highplainsblogger.com/2014/10/09/political-discourse-needs-cleansing/

This person’s response — and my reply to it — is at the bottom of the posted item.

The blog post discusses the lack of civility in today’s political discourse. The comments come from someone I don’t know — or at least I don’t think I know who it is. He/she posts the responses under a user name.

But honestly, the individual responding to my blog does so with such flair and panache, that I just couldn’t help but call attention to it.

This person says he/she “hates” liberals. Hates? Man, that’s tough language.

The individual also says he/she doesn’t question their “patriotism,” but believes their love of country is for another entity that none of us red-blooded Americans would recognize.

Liberals, according to this individual, want to form a new country in the place that currently comprises the United States of America.

Well, I salute this individual for (a) responding to my blog, (b) doing so in such an artful fashion and (c) proving my point in a way that I cannot say any better.

local news, national news, political news, State news

Bill Clinton helps more than Michelle Obama? Umm, yes

The headline over Dallas Morning News blogger Rodger Jones’s post asks: Does Bill Clinton help Van de Putte more than Michelle Obama helps Wendy Davis?

Well, duh? Do ya think?

http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2014/10/does-bill-clinton-helps-van-de-putte-more-than-michelle-obama-helps-wendy-davis.html/

The 42nd president has endorsed Democratic lieutenant nominee Leticia Van de Putte. Meanwhile, first lady Michelle Obama has recorded a radio ad for another Democrat, the nominee for governor, Wendy Davis.

With all due respect to the first lady, who I consider to be profoundly successful in her role, she ain’t no Bill Clinton.

President Clinton is a genuine political rock star. He’s the 800-pound gorilla in any political setting imaginable. He can walk into deeply red Republican regions — as he did in 2008 when he campaigned in Amarillo for his wife’s bid to become president — and pack ’em in.

Jones refers to Clinton as “Bubba,” and his endorsement amounts to a “seal of approval.”

Van de Putte will need all the help she can get in her uphill fight against Republican nominee — and fellow state senator — Dan Patrick. Clinton’s standing as the leading Democrat in the nation — yes, even more than the man who now occupies his old office in the White House — gives any candidate who receives his blessing maximum oomph.

It’s an astonishing comeback for the second president ever to be impeached. The Senate acquitted him of those politically motivated charges relating to his misbehavior in the White House. It didn’t take long at all for the president to regain his standing among many Americans.

And in the 13 years since his leaving office, that standing has grown almost beyond all recognition.

Will his endorsement put Van de Putte over the top? I doubt it. Still, she isn’t going to erase this “seal of approval.”

business news, local news

Town poised to join 21st century?

Canyon, Texas, is a lovely college community. It’s the Randall County seat, where my wife and I live, although our house is about 12 miles north of Canyon’s city limits.

It also engenders this perception among outsiders of being a place that’s a bit old-fashioned. Its residents seemingly adhere to some archaic social mores, such as its time-honored ban on selling alcoholic beverages.

Well, on Nov. 4, voters have a chance to drag Canyon into the 21st century by allowing the sale of alcohol, as in beer and wine.

It’s time for the city to let its municipal hair down just a bit and allow the sale of these products.

I do take seriously the opposition to this idea, which has been — pardon the pun — brewing for some time. A lot of hardened opponents think the sale of beer and wine at grocery stores is going to open the door to — gasp! — liquor by the drink, sold in bars and taverns.

I read a letter to the editor opposing the idea in today’s Amarillo Globe-News. The author of the letter is a gentleman with whom I’m acquainted and based on my knowledge of his political leanings, he no doubt would like to see a return of Prohibition.

Glen Stocker refers to the “Canyon crooks” who are “trying to push booze down our throats. “The lack of alcohol sales may not stop all drunken pregnant women,” he states, “but why make it easy for them?”

Sheesh! Let’s get a grip here.

The sale of this stuff doesn’t create a society of drunks. Nor does it promote alcohol abuse. It’s a realization that in our mobile society it makes no sense to ban the sale of such products when all one has to do is drive a few minutes (in this case, north to Amarillo) to purchase the stuff, bring it back home and swill it to their hearts’ content.

The very idea of dry cities and dry counties in this era of extreme mobility no longer makes sense. It might have at one time, when we traveled by horseback.

Those days are long gone.

military news, national news, political news

War College revokes senator's degree

Here’s a welcomed post script to an embarrassing political story.

The Army War College has yanked the master’s degree from U.S. Sen. John Walsh after determining that the Montana Democrat plagiarized the paper for which he was awarded the degree.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/army-war-college-revokes-sen-john-walshs-degree-26108518

This is the final blow to a political career that was on the ropes to begin with, but which now has been dealt a knockout.

Walsh was running for election to the seat to which he was appointed after former Sen. Max Baucus became U.S. ambassador to China. It would have been a tough pull for Walsh to hold the seat in a Republican year running in a state that tilts toward the GOP.

Then came the revelation that he copied much of the master’s thesis he wrote while attending the War College. He pulled out of the race after receiving a torrent of criticism.

Honor and integrity have to count when one portrays oneself as a proud member of the military; Walsh is an Army reserve officer who served combat tours in Iraq.

Walsh blamed his transgression on PTSD, to which the Army College review board responded, according to ABC.com: “The board said in its findings that other students have had similar or more serious issues during their time at the war college, but they were able to do the work ‘without resorting to plagiarism or other cheating.'”

There you have it.

So long, senator.

national news, political news

A single vote causes confusion

Alison Lundergan Grimes wants to be the next U.S. senator from Kentucky.

She’s taking on a heavyweight, Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell.

Grimes has much to commend her for the job. However, there’s a strangely awkward reticence that is getting in the way. She declines to say whether she voted for President Obama in 2012.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/alison-lundergan-grimes-obama-vote-111766.html?hp=r5

This is a strange distraction. Come on, Ms. Grimes. What’s the story? Did you or did you not support the president, a member of your very own Democratic Party?

Politics creates such a fickle environment. Little things like this become big things in a heartbeat.

In a way, I understand Grimes’s reticence. Our votes, after all, are supposed to be done in secret. We cast our ballots with no obligation to tell anyone how we vote. Where I come from, that’s a sure sign of liberty. Voters become “liberated” by their votes, giving them more than ample justification to speak their minds on policy issues and the people who carry them out.

However, Grimes is running for a public office. That means her life essentially is an open book. The public is entitled to know to what level they endorse another public figure’s public policy stances.

Thus, her vote becomes grist for comment. It also becomes a target for inquiring minds.

Her reluctance might have something to do with the president’s low standing among Kentuckians. His approval rating is about 30 percent. Grimes has told at least two newspaper editorial boards — in Louisville and Lexington — that she’s a “Clinton Democrat.” She has declined on several occasions to say whether she voted for the president.

This kind of clumsiness angers her base, which she’ll need if she intends to defeat McConnell on Nov. 4.

It’s such a petty matter in the grand scheme. It has become a bigger matter than it deserves to be.

political news, State news

Political ads starting to fly

Here we go.

Three weeks until Election Day and Texans are starting to get a gut full of TV ads — mostly of the negative variety.

It’s going to get nasty, ladies and gents.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/wendy-davis-greg-abbott-wheelchair-ad-111783.html?cmpid=sf

Democratic gubernatorial nominee Wendy Davis has just released a brutal ad attacking Republican opponent Greg Abbott over his work against others seeking assistance in the wake of catastrophic illness and injury. The ad, though, makes specific mention of the crippling injury Abbott suffered as a young man when a tree fell on him, leaving him paralyzed. It notes that Abbott sued and won millions of dollars, but has worked to deny others the same sort of award.

A group called Texans for Greg Abbott has released a radio ad alleging that Davis has used her position as a legislator and, before that, as a Fort Worth city councilwoman for personal gain.

The Davis ad attacking Abbott has drawn some serious criticism. Politico reports: “‘It is challenging to find language strong enough to condemn Sen. Davis’ disgusting television ad, which represents a historic low for someone seeking to represent Texans,’ said Abbott spokeswoman Amelia Chasse. ‘Sen. Davis’ ad shows a disturbing lack of judgment from a desperate politician and completely disqualifies her from seeking higher office in Texas.’”

I’m left to ask: Is the ad false? I cannot find a falsehood in the information presented.

Same for the anti-Davis ad I heard this morning on the radio.

People keep saying how much they detest negative advertising. I have said it myself from time to time. However, the political gurus who manage these campaigns know what works. They craft these ads because voters respond to them.

So it will be for the rest of this campaign in Texas. The state ballot is full of contested races that are bound to produce more than their share of negativity.

Get ready for it.

business news, local news

'Ban the box' from job applications

OK, I’ll stipulate that I am a bleeding-heart liberal on a lot of issues.

Hiring policy is one of them.

I ran across this item in the Charlottesville, Va. Daily Progress that got me thinking about a certain question employers occasionally ask prospective employers.

http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/roanoke-joins-charlottesville-in-removing-felony-question-from-city-job/article_3e05c5c0-5073-11e4-9508-001a4bcf6878.html

It’s the one that asks if you’ve been convicted of a felony.

I believe the question is counter-productive and that employers shouldn’t ask it.

The link attached notes that Roanoke and Charlottesville — two substantial cities in Virginia — have eliminated the required question from applications for public-sector jobs.

I’ll go along with those who say the question deters employers from hiring someone who’s done his or her time and is trying to rebuild a life outside of prison. Asking the question about their criminal history acts as a disincentive to employers looking for people for their payroll.

It’s an unfair question.

Yes, I get that employers have a right to know as much as they can about applicants. They can perform background checks, though, without asking the individual to confess to whether he or she is a convicted felon.

And what about Amarillo? City Hall asks applicants to fill out a “criminal history” section, listing convictions and the nature of the charge.

I understand that some states have enacted laws prohibited all employers from asking the question. That’s a step toward enabling folks to rebuild their lives.

Will it ever happen in Texas? I doubt it. Strongly. But it should.

political news, State news

Voter ID = poll tax

A federal judge has stuck it to Texas’s desire to require photo identification for everyone wanting to vote.

She did so with unflinching language. This fight is going to get interesting.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/10/09/federal-judge-rules-texas-voter-id-law-unconstitut/

The Texas Tribune reports: “’The Court holds that SB 14 creates an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, has an impermissible discriminatory effect against Hispanics and African-Americans, and was imposed with an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose,’ U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos of Corpus Christi wrote in a 147-page opinion. ‘The Court further holds that SB 14 constitutes an unconstitutional poll tax.’”

Oh yes. Ramos was appointed to the federal bench by President Barack Obama.

Now what? The state has vowed to file an immediate appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fifth Circuit needs to decide quickly if this matter is to be settled in time for the Nov. 4 mid-term election.

I have to hand it to Judge Ramos. She stood tall against voter suppression, which is what voter ID appears to be — to me, at least.

The Texas voter ID law requires voters to produce some form of photo identification when they go to the polls. Opponents of the law enacted in 2011 contend that it discriminates against minority voters who might not have, say, a driver’s license, a passport, a concealed firearm permit or any other valid form of photo ID.

To obtain such identification requires significant expense in some cases, voter ID foes argue, and that comprises what they contend is an unconstitutional “poll tax.”

Across the country where voter ID laws have been in force, the laws are the result of Republican-controlled state governments. That’s not unusual by itself. However, the politics of these laws requires one to wonder out loud: Is this done to suppress the vote among residents who might tend to vote, umm, Democratic?

The alleged bogeyman in this is voter fraud. According to the Texas Tribune: “The state maintains the law ensures the security of the ballots cast by voters and prevents voter fraud. Attorneys for the state argued that there is no evidence the law will keep legitimate voters from voting. Attorneys challenging the law said there is little evidence of the kind of in-person voter fraud the law is intended to prevent.”

Another question: Is voter fraud such a huge matter in Texas that it requires a law such as this?

Instances of voter fraud over the course of many election cycles comprise a minuscule amount.

I’ll leave it to state Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, to put this matter in what I believe is its proper perspective:

“Texas has a long and sad history of making it difficult for people to vote. Elected officials repeatedly used the law to keep people out of the voting booth. Decades later, history rightly judges those men and women in a harsh light. As the court ruled, the voter ID law is essentially a modern day poll tax and has the same effect as other laws used in decades past to keep scores of lawful, legal Americans from voting. It was wrong then, it is wrong now, and I’m pleased the court stood up to protect the right to vote for all Texans.”

The fight isn’t over. Not by a long shot.

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience