DeLay and Abramoff and the Sopranos

Reported by me previously, the story of Jack Abramoff's wiseguys getting a recalcitrant business deal moved forward in their favor by bumping off the recalcitrant business owner has taken a turn for the worse (if you're the bad guys, that is):

According to an article just posted in the (South Florida) Sun-Sentinal, Adam Kidan looks set to flip and testify against Abramoff in the SunCruz case down in Florida.

A "change of plea" hearing has been set for December 15th.

Here's something I don't quite get, though. As we've noted many times before, there's at least some very suggestive evidence that Kidan played a role in the death of Gus Boulis, the guy he and Jack bought SunCruz from.

Even that is a bit generous: Kidan was in a feud with Boulis that had already led to one physical altercation between the two men. Then or around that time Kidan, who has a history of Mafia associations, puts three known mobsters on the SunCruz payroll, hiring them as either caterers or 'security consultants' or both. Then those three guys mow Boulis down in a gangland-style hit.

You know, call me suspicious.

That is Josh's summary, but the Sun-Sentinel article has a bit I want to excerpt just for the nicknames:

By November 2000, Kidan had contacted an old friend, Anthony "Big Tony" Moscatiello. Moscatiello had signed a contract with SunCruz to be a "catering consultant" at $25,000 a month, according to court records. Kidan said he thought Boulis was going to kill him, according to statements Moscatiello gave police. Moscatiello, a known associate of the late crime boss John Gotti, promised to smooth things over.

Moscatiello put Kidan in touch with Anthony "Little Tony" Ferrari, who ran "Moon Over Miami Beach," a company that, among other things, is described in records as a security firm. One of the men who worked for Ferrari was James "Pudgy" Fiorillo. In September, Moscatiello, Ferrari and Fiorillo were indicted in Boulis' murder. Kidan has not been charged in the case.

Frankly, David Chase has written better subplots.

So, if you're caught up with your reading, you now know that Jack Abramoff, someone whom Tom DeLay has described as one of his "closest and dearest friends", has been implicated in a mob hit, and the mobster who 'allegedly' ordered the hit is about to flip.

I think we're out of popcorn. Will these mixed nuts do?

Culberson thinks al-Qaeda caught, in W. Texas jail

Hilarious. Tom DeLay's towel boy, John Culberson, was on Hannity and Colmes in November and announced that a member of al-Qaeda had been captured by the Brewster County sheriff's department. Too bad for him it wasn't true:

Local Republican congressman John Culberson took to the Fox News airwaves last month to raise the alarm about illegal immigration.

Two West Texas sheriffs, he said on Hannity & Colmes, "confirmed for me that they had an Al Qaeda terrorist…in the Brewster County jail."

To which the two sheriffs in question have answered, in essence, WTF?

One of the sheriffs, Brewster County's Ronny Dodson, told The Big Bend Sentinel that he had jailed one person "who had drawn a picture on his pants of Osama Bin Laden, and we don't know if that was a joke or not." He said Culberson must have been confused somehow by hearing various stories from border agents.

Tony Essalih, Culberson's press secretary, says there's no confusion. Two other aides of the congressman were present when the sheriffs told them of the terrorist prisoner, he says.

"We really haven't figured out where the communication breakdown was. What he said on the show was what he was told by the sheriffs," Essalih says.

Both sheriffs have been avoiding the non-local media since the story broke, but one staffer at the Brewster County Sheriff's Department said Culberson's people "were lying through their teeth…I told them if they'd bring me an Al Qaeda I'd slap him four times, make him pick up cigarette butts; you know, something really mean. But no, no Al Qaeda [here]."

David Murff, one of Culberson's challengers in CD-07 and who has joined the blogranks, has more.

DeLay: Marianas dealings may be his worst crimes

Jesse Lee at the Stakeholder, via Josh Marshall, links to the Marianas Variety, which reports that the recently-elected head of state has turned state's witness:

Governor-Elect Benigno R. Fitial says he will cooperate with federal authorities in the ongoing investigation of Rep. Tom Delay and former Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff, whom he once described as his “close friends.”

You should go here and read the entire, tangled, complicated thing, but here's the moneyshot:

As Jesse points out, interference by Congress in the internal elections of territories such as the Marianas Islands is illegal. Rep. George Miller (D-CA) took an interest in DeLay's involvement in the Marianas some years ago, and as ranking Democrat on the House Resources Committee repeatedly asked Republican Chairman (and Abramoff implicatee) Richard Pombo to investigate. Pombo stonewalled but eventually co-signed a letter to the Department of Justice asking them to expand the Abramoff probe to include the Marianas Islands. The following excerpt -- one of the letters Miller wrote to Pombo -- summarizes:

I wrote that in 1999, two men associated with then-Majority Whip Tom DeLay - Ed Buckham, a one-time chief of staff who later became the head of ARMPAC, and Mike Scanlon, a DeLay spokesman - were reportedly involved in an effort to influence the election of the Speaker to the CNMI House of Representatives. I have since learned of additional evidence to suggest these two men may have traded political favors to sway the election in favor of a candidate most likely to renew a contract with lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

There's more, naturally.

Popcorn?

Deep progressive thoughts

The group of bloggers at Think Progress are simply doing all the good work lately. Here's from one of their posts on ScAlito:

==============================

Throughout the confirmation process, Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito has had difficulty standing by his words and taking responsibility for his actions.

For example, when he was nominated to a federal appeals court in 1990 he promised the Senate that he would recuse himself from any case involving the investment firm Vanguard because of his substantial investments with the company. In 2002, he ruled on a case involving Vanguard anyway.

Instead of taking responsibility for his actions, Alito has made excuses. In a letter sent to Alito yesterday, Sen. Ted Kennedy documented six different excuses Alito has floated to avoid taking responsibility. Here’s a summary:

1. It wasn’t really a promise. He was free to dissolve his responsibility at anytime.

2. It was an oversight.

3. It was OK because the specific investments he owned were not at issue.

4. It was OK because he “voluntarily” recused himself once a complaint was filed.

5. It was a “harmless error.”

6. It didn’t matter because the defendant was representing herself.

These excuses are contradictory and irrelevant. But biggest concern is not that his excuses are bad but that he’s taken the time to make so many. It is essential for Supreme Court justices accept accountability for their words and actions. Alito has shown he has trouble doing either.

=============================

And another:

=============================

The right’s latest campaign to build public support for Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito? Convincing you he’s the Christmas candidate.

The right-wing Commitee for Justice yesterday began airing a radio ad in Colorado, Wisconsin, and West Virginia, trying to convince conservatives that he will lead the fight against the so-called “War on Christmas.” As slingshot.org notes, the Committee was formed at the behest of Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) and Karl Rove to funnel business money into the Supreme Court fight. From the ad:

It’s the season when Americans celebrate our traditions of faith … and once again religious freedom is under assault. … Some courts and judges have supported this radical agenda, but not Judge Sam Alito, President Bush’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court. Throughout his career, Judge Alito has consistently upheld the Constitution’s protection of free religious expression. [Listen to the ad here]

Right-winger Jay Sekulow, who has helped the White House with its Supreme Court nominee strategy and chief counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice, has created his own Christmas resource center and hints that more ads pairing Alito and Christmas and attacking Alito’s critics as “anti-God” may be forthcoming:

This is going to be the dominant theme on the Alito nomination until the end of the year-the convergence of a Supreme Court nomination, the Christmas season, and a judge who has a well-staked-out position on support for religious expression.

Evidently the “well qualified” conservative argument wasn’t working well.

==============================

And from an interview with Rep. David Obey (D-WI), the ranking member on the House Appropriations Committee, Rep. David Price (D-NC), and Rep. Tom Allen (D-ME), on Congressional ethics:

==============================

THINK PROGRESS: Our last question – why isn’t Roy Blunt as effective a leader as Tom DeLay?

OBEY: Well, there was a reason Tom DeLay was referred to as “The Hammer” because Tom didn’t just lead by persuasion, he led by intimidation, he led by muscle. I mean, this is a man who would bring in outside lobby groups in and trade associations and tell them that if they wanted attention and access, they had better hire Republicans in their operation. He created a marriage between K Street lobbying operations and the Capitol and Pennsylvania Avenue and that made him very formidable even as it gutted what democracy was supposed to be able to produce.

ALLEN: I would say it’s too early to say how effective Roy Blunt is, but clearly, the ruthlessness of a Tom DeLay has had a huge impact on the way the House has been run. Of course, right now, Roy Blunt’s going to deal with the fact that opinions of this Republican Congress are in the tank, and there are Republicans who, just as I said before, are really anxious, they’re afraid they’re going to lose their own elections – so it’s a hard group to manage. This is all the result of an underlying philosophy that we’re not going to deal with Democrats, we’re only going to rely on Republicans, and we’re going to force cohesion when it doesn’t even exist in many cases.

PRICE: Roy Blunt’s got his hands full. I mean, this is an agenda – a terrible way to try to start out a leadership career, cutting food stamps, and Medicaid, and student loans, and child support, while you’re at the same time giving tax breaks for dividends and capital gains – goodness, that’s a nightmare, for any leader. And the notion that Tom DeLay could pull this off, I’m not sure is correct. But, anyway, it’s Roy Blunt’s bad luck to be coming in just as President Bush’s popularity goes south, and conservatives are trying this power play to do all these draconian cuts to the most vulnerable people in society and Roy Blunt’s being asked to deliver on this. He’s guilty of, if nothing else, of bad timing, of trying to pull this off. But the notion that DeLay could come in here and do it – I’m not sure even DeLay could manage this.

==============================

They have become a daily must-read. Bookmark them.

Fun with Tom and Dick

From the DeLay fundraiser /protest, at the Galleria yesterday. Protestors outside outnumbered attendees inside by about three-to-one.

Go here for more pictures.

Is Bob Gammage Damaged Goods?

I 've been watching the viral marketing campaign online for former Texas Supreme Court justice Bob Gammage's "campaign" for Texas Governor unfold over the past two weeks, and I must say it's been an interesting and yet obviously choreographed demonstration, and a lesson for anyone who wants to create buzz about a candidate "considering" a run for office. Apparently, it worked, because Gammage is to declare himself a candidate next week, according to the Austin American-Statesman.

(In fact, we're seeing the same thing also happen with rumors now online around two other possible Democratic candidates for Governor, former Texas House speaker Pete Laney and Houston mayor Bill White, but that's fodder for a post I'll make should either or both decide to crowd into the water.)

The questions I pose below have been turning over in my mind since I did some Googling on Gammage -- his long experience in Texas politics predates my own quite short experience as an activist, so I went looking for some information in the public domain that might tell me what he's been up to since he retired from the Texas Supreme Court in 1995.

Not a lot, it appears, beyond earning a comfortable living as an attorney and working in the Wesley Clark campaign in 2004.

First of all, some self-disclosure is in order. It ought to be no secret that I'm an avid supporter of Chris Bell. Bell was my representative when he served in Congress; he's been a friend of my family's for quite some time, and I like him a lot personally. So there will be some who are going to carp about my bias, and I'll admit it straight up front so there's no misunderstanding. I'm on record as saying that a contested primary is not a bad thing. And so it ought be just as clear that my enthusiasm for Bell has nothing to do with the questions that surround Bob Gammage's departure from public service ten years ago, his reasons for doing so, and his political activism since that time. These are matters Gammage is simply going to have to clear up in order to run a successful campaign.

I hereby invite him to do so, here or elsewhere online (or in the MSM, if he so chooses).

Let me begin with the circumstances surrounding Gammage's departure from the Supreme Court in August, 1995:

At the time he resigned -- almost a year and a half prior to the expiration of his term on the Court -- Gammage stated that he intended to go to work with former Texas attorney general, judge, and gubernatorial candidate John Hill, who had announced plans to reform the judicial system in Texas. But Gammage did not do that; instead he accepted a position in then-Land Commissioner Garry Mauro's office.

This prompts two questions:

-- why did Gammage resign so early? He created a vacancy for Bush to appoint James Baker -- no relation to the former G. H.W. Bush Secretary of State -- and Baker was able to run as an incumbent, winning the 1996 election, strengthening the assimilation of increasingly harder-right-wing radicals to the Court, and paving the way for the GOP sweeps from that time up to the present.

-- why did Gammage say he would do one thing, but then do another? Was the pay in Mauro's office so great, or the calling greater than that of Hill's judicial reform efforts? Wouldn't a retiring Supreme Court Justice have better prospects than this?

Now as far as I can tell, Bob Gammage left Austin in 1996 and relocated from Houston -- where he had served in the US Congress before his constituents selected Mike Andrews instead to represent them -- to Arlington, began a law practice in Llano, and spent nearly a decade out of the political limelight ... until he got heavily involved in Clark's presidential campaign in 2004.

(More disclosure: I also worked on Clark's campaign, attending Meetups and writing letters to New Hampshireites and Virginians and making phone calls as well to voters in those states. I did not meet Gammage, or even hear of his name during that time. And I am sure he did not hear of mine. I daresay he has little to no idea who I am today).

According to people who would know, Bob had promised his wife Linda a quieter, more comfortable life after his years in governmental service, something to which they were both certainly entitled.

But according to other people who would know, Gammage had some murky implication in the scandal of the time: the tobacco-litigation kickbacks that eventually ensnared attorney general Dan Morales, forcing his resignation from office and resulting in his conviction and prison sentence (which as of this post Morales is still serving):

But if he enters the race, (Gammage) also may have to answer campaign questions about his own unwitting role in a major Democratic scandal, former Attorney General Dan Morales' attempt to obtain millions of dollars in fraudulent legal fees for a friend in Texas' anti-tobacco lawsuit.

Morales is about halfway through a four-year federal prison sentence stemming from the case, and his friend, Marc Murr, was sentenced to six months in federal prison. Both pleaded guilty in 2003 to federal mail fraud charges.

Gammage was one of three state arbitrators who recommended in 1998 that Murr, then an attorney, be paid $260 million for purported work that other lawyers in the tobacco suit said he never performed.

The arbitrators were selected by Morales and Murr after Morales had obtained a $17.3 billion settlement of a suit against tobacco companies over health care costs associated with smoking.

A national arbitration panel overturned most of the state award and gave Murr $1 million, which he later relinquished after Morales' successor, Attorney General John Cornyn, challenged the award in court.

Five other law firms hired by Morales to try the case shared in $3.3 billion in legal fees awarded by the federal arbitrators. The fees are being paid in installments by cigarette makers.

Gammage said Thursday that he and the other two state arbitrators "dealt with the evidence that was before us."

"There was a very detailed account of what he (Morales) said Murr had done," Gammage recalled.

No one, he said, presented evidence against the fees.

He also said the arbitration process had been approved by the federal judge presiding over the tobacco case and the panel's recommended award was conditioned on the judge's approval.

I'd simply like a bit more detailed explanation than so far has been made regarding this from Gammage.

And I make my request so that the voters of theTexas Democratic Party can select a candidate for Governor that has absolutely none of the same stench of corruption that the Republicans thoroughly reek of.

What say you, Mr. Gammage?

Update: Apparently Bob's been thinking about running for quite bit longer than the last couple of weeks.

ZL0b-ing it yesterday

That's the name of the nasty virus I picked up and dealt with all of yesterday. It's still got one last annoying little thing popping up, and it's dug its fingernails into the registry, but I will shortly rip it out by the roots.

On Saturday we spent the day in Galveston at Dickens on the Strand, and Sunday we attended Jim Henley's campaign kickoff.

So that's why you haven't seen me around here for awhile.

A few things happened while I was away...

Tom DeLay got bad news on three fronts: he'll go to trial on money-laundering charges after the holidays, the House Republicans are desperate to ditch him, and he polls well behind an unnamed 'Democrat' in his district. (Pssst, Gallup: several of us in Texas know the name of the Democrat.) La Cucaracha Grande still hasn't awakened and smelled the coffee, though, because he was all smiles at a fundraiser for his lawyers last night. The protestors outnumbered the donors again; about 300 to 100. I think they call that a 'slam dunk'...

It now appears as if a handful of Democrats -- from Bob Gammage to Pete Laney to Tony Sanchez to Bill White -- are grinding their rumor mills in an effort to build support for a run for Governor. None of them seem to have noticed that there are other statewide offices with no candidates. And the Houston Chronicle still may not be aware that David Van Os has been running for Attorney General for months now. (I will have a post regarding Gammage in the next day or two regarding his online viral campaign, and a handful of unanswered and rather unsettling questions.)

And the network of Lone Star Lefty bloggers' Texan of the Year campaign finally made the MSM.

I'll try to get caught up later.

GOP Goobers finally fire their muskets

We've all been waiting for the eye-scratching and hair-pulling to commence in the Republican gubernatorial primary. It's finally time to microwave Orville Redenbacher:

Gov. Rick Perry's campaign Friday accused Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn, his Republican primary rival, of using her state office equipment to produce a campaign news release.

That prompted Strayhorn's camp to fire back and accuse a Perry aide of acting as a political operative even when he was working in the governor's press office at the state Capitol.

"Yes you did!" "No I didn't, but you did!" "Neener, neener!"

Another stimulating debate between the GOP leaders of the Great State of Texas on the difficult issues facing us. Repeat after me: "Adios, MoFos".

Texas redistricting was illegal -- but the GOP did it anyway

Others have this news from overnight, so I'll be brief with the snips and the linkage. From the WaPo:

Justice Department lawyers concluded that the landmark Texas congressional redistricting plan spearheaded by Rep. Tom DeLay (R) violated the Voting Rights Act, according to a previously undisclosed memo obtained by The Washington Post. But senior officials overruled them and approved the plan.

The memo, unanimously endorsed by six lawyers and two analysts in the department's voting section, said the redistricting plan illegally diluted black and Hispanic voting power in two congressional districts. It also said the plan eliminated several other districts in which minorities had a substantial, though not necessarily decisive, influence in elections.

...

One of two DeLay aides also under indictment in the case, James W. Ellis, is cited in the Justice Department memo as pushing for the plan despite the risk that it would not receive "pre-clearance," or approval, from the department. Ellis and other DeLay aides successfully forced the adoption of their plan over two other versions passed by Texas legislators that would not have raised as many concerns about voting rights discrimination, the memo said.

... the Justice Department's approval of the redistricting plan, signed by Sheldon T. Bradshaw, principal deputy assistant attorney general, was valuable to Texas officials when they defended it in court. He called the internal Justice Department memo, which did not come out during the court case, "yet another indictment of Tom DeLay, because this memo shows conclusively that the map he produced violated the law."

...

Jerry Strickland, a spokesman for Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, said he did not have any immediate comment.

You can read the 73-page memo here (.pdf file).

So, two things:

First, it's clear once again that Nothing Gets In Tom DeLay's Way. Not the law, not the Justice Department, not the will of the people, nothing.

He's proven -- once again -- that he's the one at the heart of the Republican Mafia running Texas and the nation. Not the brains (that's Rove and Cheney) but the muscle. DeLay is the capo who breaks the kneecaps and collects the insurance, which he then doles out to his little henchmen all over the country. DeLay is both good earner and enforcer.

A reminder: Big Time Dick will be in Houston next Monday to keep the Republicans' Thing going -- he's coming to help The Hammer raise money for the brigades of lawyers working nights to keep his sorry ass out of jail. With them wll appear the Governor of Texas, Rick "Adios MoFo" Perry, and the junior Senator from Texas, John "I Love Torturing Box Turtles" Cornyn.

A Corruption Superfecta.

It may yet be that the good people of the 22nd District will get to deliver the message the Sugar Land Bugman has been ignoring for years now, or maybe the law will eventually catch up to him, whether that is Ronnie Earle or the Justice Department attorneys who will prosecute the charges resulting from the misdeeds of Jack Abramoff and Michael Scanlon. But like Al Capone, Tom DeLay ain't goin' to the end of the block without a fight.

Second, DeLay and his illegal cash corrupt everyone they touch. Why the Attorney General of Texas would roll over for Tom DeLay in defiance of the the Department of Justice makes him a stooge of the first rank. The only reason these nonbinding-but-heavily-weighted memos are issued is to avoid lengthy and expensive (to the taxpayers) court battles.

The law said no, and the GOP political hacks said screw the law, we're doing it anyway. Let them try to stop us.

Well guess what, thugs? The people are going to stop you. One way or another, we're taking you down.

Lefty blogs select Republican as Texan of the Year

So we had this contest, if you recall...

And the winner is a Republican.

And not Tom DeLay, or Tom Craddick, or Governor MoFo or either of the two idiots in the US Senate.

We passed over Texans who made big news in a good way, such as Ronnie Earle and Bill White. We even skipped the Kinkster (my humble O is that he hasn't made any news yet).

Rep. Carter Casteel of New Braunfels is the recipient of the first annual Texan of the Year.

Now to be clear, Casteel was about my seventh out of a list of nine. I actually never heard the name until we ran this contest. And you may be saying the same thing to yourself at this moment. So by way of introduction, here's a bit from the press release:

Casteel was selected, in part, for her outstanding courage and hard work during the legislative session to support public education. Representative Casteel, a Republican, was overwhelmingly selected by a group of ‘progressive’ and ‘liberal’ bloggers in Texas for her ability to break ranks with Republican leadership that was widely seen to ignore the pressing issue of school finance. “We believe, as a group, that Representative Casteel embodies the spirit of statesmanship and reminds all of us what a true leader does to stand up for Texas. We’re pleased and encouraged by her ability to work with leadership from both sides of the aisle for the common good,” says Charlie from Pinkdome.com.

Rep. Casteel answered a few questions posed by us, also:

========================================

Do you expect a challenger in the primary (from either party)?

I always run a campaign like I’ve got a challenger. I’ve not heard of one so far.

What do you think of your party's attempts at targeting those that voted for the Hochberg amendment?

I don’t think they are being targeted by the leadership.

What do you think of the '65% rule'?

That’s fine. That’s an admirable goal. Depending on how you count it. But here’s the question: what is the classroom? Are you talking about the teacher, the aide, the nurse, the librarian, the counselor? You have to include some of the support for the teacher so the kid is in the classroom in the first place.

How does one balance voting one's district, one's party, and one's personal feelings when those three points are not all in line on a single issue?

I’ve got a brain and a background so I know that’s important to use. I’m also in a district I’ve lived in for thirty-something years. I have a fair understanding of my district, but it is critical that I communicate with my district. It is a struggle because you are going to vote your district and your conscience and every two years you have to answer to them. I’m comfortable with my party platform.

What concerns me is how public education became a liberal issue! That’s a conservative value.

I balance all those things and make my decision. It can offend people, but I can stand by my decisions. Don’t forget, I listen to the debate.

What do you think of the recent (Texas) Supreme Court ruling (on the funding of Texas public education)?

I think adequacy is still on the table and will come up in the next special session.

What would you like to see the Lege do with school finance reform?

Competitive teacher pay and health care benefits. I don’t think it’s fair to ask our teachers to help shape the future of Texas and not compensate them in a fair way.

What do you think will actually happen with school finance reform?

I think everything is on the table. I’ve met with John Sharp and I believe we are all eager to see solutions that are fair from district to district. I think there is a growth and interest among the people of Texas that are paying attention and I think that is a good thing. People are concerned
about our lack of progress and stepping up to the plate to get in front of the right people.

What do you think about educators lobbying the Legislature?

How in the world can they communicate with the legislature without coming up there and talk to (us). If you want to call it lobbying, fine. But people go on their own time and write letters. People have made the same complaints against everybody that comes up to the legislature.

That being said, I’d rather see my tax dollars being used to educate children. If that’s not happening, then I want my tax dollars to communicate with the legislature on behalf of what’s not happening. I don’t know what the rule is, but we’ll see if a rule is going to be proposed. How is it being done? Can we invite the education community to the legislature in a different way? They’ve been shut out so maybe a lobbyist is the only way to get in the door.

============================

Jack over at The People's Republic of Seabrook appears to have weighed in first with the news, followed closely by the Pink Lady.

Thanks for sponsoring the contest goes to PinkDome.

Update (today): An excerpt from Eye on Williamson County's post:

Her decision to stand up to Speaker Craddick, wing-nut money changer Dr. James Leininger, and the many Republican voucher sheep - in order to save what's left of our public schools so there is still a chance they can become what they should be - was an extraordinary act of courage, dignity, justice and just plain doing the right thing.

And from Hope at The Appalachia Alumni Association:

Perhaps this year's Texan of the Year Award should be renamed the Bill Ratliff Memorial Award For Not Being A Slave To Power Politics.

Update #2 (also today): Kuffner notes Casteel's comment...

What concerns me is how public education became a liberal issue! That's a conservative value.

And responds:

To me, public education isn't a conservative value any more than it's a liberal value. It is, or at least I hope it is, a universal value. It's a recognition by society that everyone benefits when knowledge and learning are accessible to all. We can argue about how best to implement that, and frankly I think we're best off when we have many perspectives in that argument, but we all need to agree that we have to implement it somehow before that argument can be a productive one. With people like Rep. Casteel in Austin, I feel like that's possible.

And By the Bayou points out that, unlike the other nominees, Casteel had significant impact for better and for worse:

Representative Casteel certainly deserves credit for her work on education. However, she was part of something else that had a big impact on Texas this year, and it wasn't something good: she was a co-author of HJR 6, which put the now-passed anti-marriage amendment on the ballot in November.

On the other hand, though, she also voted against legislation that would have banned gay people from being foster parents. That was a good vote, and courageous for a Republican. ...

While many of the other final nominees had an impact on Texas in one area or another, Ms. Casteel managed to be influential in two areas. First, she courageously broke with her party's leadership to help protect public education in Texas. She has demonstrated bipartisanship in an increasingly partisan legislature, and that's to be commended.

But second, she not-so-courageously helped write discrimination into the state constitution. The impact of that one will be felt longer, and while it qualifies her as a person of importance this year, it's nothing to be proud of.