Sunday, September 16, 2012
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
About that money and politics thing
Charles rejoined today to this post of mine yesterday a few days ago.
Kuff's points are well-taken, and he's my friend, so let me first declare that it's not my intention to start a blog war with him. He would bury me in spreadsheets, anyway. ;^)
I thought it might be useful, though, to speak to some of his remarks above in the hope that our common Democratic friends understand my POV and personal evolution in this regard. Who knows, it might even make sense to some of them.
-- Let's begin first with the very last sentence in that TexTrib article Charles linked to.
What ROI do you, dear reader, think that Bob Perry -- of Swift Boat infamy -- expects from the following Democrats in the Texas Legislature just this year alone (thanks to John Coby for the data):
Al Edwards, of course, failed in his repetitive bid to unseat my state representative, Borris Miles, but we should still list him as ex-officio Lege member (he certainly holds himself out in the community as such). The Texas delegates at the Democratic state convention just recently managed to replace him on the DNC, after all. And D-to-R turncoats JM Lozano ($65,000), and Allan Ritter ($2500) probably represent the best investment Perry made, if you count party-switchers as a payoff. Chuck Hopson ($65,000), though, was a waste; he lost in the GOP primary.
Hey, some investments don't pan out.
I'm fully aware of the humorous bromide Molly Ivins repeated and is generally credited to either Sam Rayburn or Jesse Unruh. That's a clever dodge considering the money being invested these days. But is Gallegos really worth 8 times more than Alvarado, who is wagered at twice the value of Coleman and Martinez Fischer? I don't actually expect anyone to explain the political calculus of Bob Perry to me; he's got his own logic. And I'm certain he paid a lot of money for it.
-- Charles' POV on Citizens United is likewise valid, and no, nobody in their right mind expects unilateral disarmament on the part of Democrats. Extending the nuclear analogy a step further, the Democrats are in the unenviable position of the former Soviet Union in this regard. Barack Obama in 2008 is the exception, however, and CU's influence in 2012 is a topic written enough about elsewhere that it doesn't need to be emphasized here by me.
What do you think the future holds for money in politics if we simply throw up our hands and say we can't change the rules, so we need to keep playing by them? I don't consider politics a sport no matter how many sporting analogies are constantly thrown out. It is possible to change the rules, even if the institution itself inhibits and discourages change.
What those of us who believe as I do think is necessary is nothing short of a constitutional amendment overturning CU, and there's a strong movement working toward that. It of course has powerful and well-funded opponents, and they naturally tend to support the most vile of political candidates.
Those opponents might include the electronic media and direct mail companies -- extending all the way down to our nation's local markets -- who make big profits on political advertising and, at a time of crisis for mass media advertising generally, could be expected to have their corporate overlords oppose restrictions on campaign financing, along with all of the bought-and-paid for Republican legislators from the statehouse to the Congress. And many of the Democrats, as I have previously noted.
This is to say nothing of the consultant class, which is a cottage industry in and of itself. Many of my blog brethren in Texas have gone into that business. Some political advisors have turned to blogging, of course, I suppose as a way of 'enhancing their brand'. I have no idea how well this line of work pays but it appears that the compensation is secondary to the career fulfillment aspects. Certainly the potential ones.
Good on anyone who finds a job that they love, I suppose. For me personally, I'm not ever going to look for a job in politics, even under the cloak of non-partisanship.
-- Yes Charles, Greens do raise money from small contributions from individuals in order to fund their campaigns. Money that is spent on gasoline for the car to drive to public events, the occasional yard signs, and even *gasp* VAN access. Don't exaggerate the false premise that Greens -- or any progressive candidate, for that matter, including Democrats -- are averse to fund-raising.
(It's important here to note that I have seen and heard this sneer at least since I worked David Van Os' campaign for Texas attorney general in 2006. Even unpaid, volunteer Democratic activists have been inculcated to believe that a candidate who can't raise money is a campaign not to be taken seriously. See this from a paid political consultant for the latest demonstration of this attitude.)
If you have twenty-four minutes, watch the Bill Moyers video below of Jill Stein and Cheri Honkala as they explain precisely why the millions of dollars in our one-party corporate political system is, and has been, a road to ruin.
If you don't want to take their word for it, then try on Bernie Sanders' take. And if you don't have time to watch the video then peruse the transcript at your leisure. Here's a short excerpt from the beginning.
So Charles, we can keep playing by the rules -- especially here in Texas, where there are no limits to campaign contributions -- and expect a different result someday, or we can work to change the game.
Everybody hopefully understands which side I'm on now.
I maintain that money is a key part of the equation here, and I find myself puzzled at the animus that some folks have to this. If we believe that doing the same thing over and over again in hope of a different result is ill-advised, then I would maintain that trying to win elections while hopelessly outgunned financially is something we have already decisively shown to be a bad idea. The hard work of organizing, identifying and registering new voters, then getting them to the polls, is not going to be done by an army of volunteers. It’s going to take permanent, paid, professional staff to do that. Communicating a message takes money, too. I’m fully aware of the corrosive effects of money in politics. I’d love to see more public financing available for qualified candidates, and I’d love to see far more restrictions on PACs and corporate contributions, but as long as Citizens United is the law of the land I have no idea how to achieve that, and I refuse to unilaterally disarm in the meantime. Last I checked, even Green Party candidates were holding fundraisers – I know, because I’ve been invited to at least two of them – so it’s not really a question of whether or not money is needed. I want the national Democratic party to spend money in Texas, which some people think may be on the horizon, and I make no apologies for that.
Kuff's points are well-taken, and he's my friend, so let me first declare that it's not my intention to start a blog war with him. He would bury me in spreadsheets, anyway. ;^)
I thought it might be useful, though, to speak to some of his remarks above in the hope that our common Democratic friends understand my POV and personal evolution in this regard. Who knows, it might even make sense to some of them.
-- Let's begin first with the very last sentence in that TexTrib article Charles linked to.
"The thing people have to understand about the people who write big checks is that they look strategically," (Michael Li) said. "They look for a return on investment."
What ROI do you, dear reader, think that Bob Perry -- of Swift Boat infamy -- expects from the following Democrats in the Texas Legislature just this year alone (thanks to John Coby for the data):
- Carol Alvarado, $10,000
- Rafael Anchia, $2500
- Garnet Coleman, $5000
- Harold Dutton, $1000
- Al Edwards, $20,000
- Rodney Ellis, $5000
- Mario Gallegos, $80,000
- Ryan Guillen, $1000
- Tracy King, $5000
- Eddie Lucio, $50,000
- Trey Martinez Fischer, $5000
- Armando Martinez, $2500
- Rene Oliviera, $5000
- Carlos Uresti, $7500
- Royce West, $2000
- John Whitmire, $20,000
Al Edwards, of course, failed in his repetitive bid to unseat my state representative, Borris Miles, but we should still list him as ex-officio Lege member (he certainly holds himself out in the community as such). The Texas delegates at the Democratic state convention just recently managed to replace him on the DNC, after all. And D-to-R turncoats JM Lozano ($65,000), and Allan Ritter ($2500) probably represent the best investment Perry made, if you count party-switchers as a payoff. Chuck Hopson ($65,000), though, was a waste; he lost in the GOP primary.
Hey, some investments don't pan out.
I'm fully aware of the humorous bromide Molly Ivins repeated and is generally credited to either Sam Rayburn or Jesse Unruh. That's a clever dodge considering the money being invested these days. But is Gallegos really worth 8 times more than Alvarado, who is wagered at twice the value of Coleman and Martinez Fischer? I don't actually expect anyone to explain the political calculus of Bob Perry to me; he's got his own logic. And I'm certain he paid a lot of money for it.
-- Charles' POV on Citizens United is likewise valid, and no, nobody in their right mind expects unilateral disarmament on the part of Democrats. Extending the nuclear analogy a step further, the Democrats are in the unenviable position of the former Soviet Union in this regard. Barack Obama in 2008 is the exception, however, and CU's influence in 2012 is a topic written enough about elsewhere that it doesn't need to be emphasized here by me.
What do you think the future holds for money in politics if we simply throw up our hands and say we can't change the rules, so we need to keep playing by them? I don't consider politics a sport no matter how many sporting analogies are constantly thrown out. It is possible to change the rules, even if the institution itself inhibits and discourages change.
What those of us who believe as I do think is necessary is nothing short of a constitutional amendment overturning CU, and there's a strong movement working toward that. It of course has powerful and well-funded opponents, and they naturally tend to support the most vile of political candidates.
Those opponents might include the electronic media and direct mail companies -- extending all the way down to our nation's local markets -- who make big profits on political advertising and, at a time of crisis for mass media advertising generally, could be expected to have their corporate overlords oppose restrictions on campaign financing, along with all of the bought-and-paid for Republican legislators from the statehouse to the Congress. And many of the Democrats, as I have previously noted.
This is to say nothing of the consultant class, which is a cottage industry in and of itself. Many of my blog brethren in Texas have gone into that business. Some political advisors have turned to blogging, of course, I suppose as a way of 'enhancing their brand'. I have no idea how well this line of work pays but it appears that the compensation is secondary to the career fulfillment aspects. Certainly the potential ones.
Good on anyone who finds a job that they love, I suppose. For me personally, I'm not ever going to look for a job in politics, even under the cloak of non-partisanship.
-- Yes Charles, Greens do raise money from small contributions from individuals in order to fund their campaigns. Money that is spent on gasoline for the car to drive to public events, the occasional yard signs, and even *gasp* VAN access. Don't exaggerate the false premise that Greens -- or any progressive candidate, for that matter, including Democrats -- are averse to fund-raising.
(It's important here to note that I have seen and heard this sneer at least since I worked David Van Os' campaign for Texas attorney general in 2006. Even unpaid, volunteer Democratic activists have been inculcated to believe that a candidate who can't raise money is a campaign not to be taken seriously. See this from a paid political consultant for the latest demonstration of this attitude.)
If you have twenty-four minutes, watch the Bill Moyers video below of Jill Stein and Cheri Honkala as they explain precisely why the millions of dollars in our one-party corporate political system is, and has been, a road to ruin.
If you don't want to take their word for it, then try on Bernie Sanders' take. And if you don't have time to watch the video then peruse the transcript at your leisure. Here's a short excerpt from the beginning.
BILL MOYERS: I first heard of you about ten years ago when the Clean Elections Law -- public funding for state elections was up in Massachusetts where you were living at the time. And the people in Massachusetts voted two to one for clean elections, for public funding of state elections. And yet sometime later the Massachusetts legislature, a Democratic legislature, on an unrecorded vote overturned that judgment. They vetoed the public will.
JILL STEIN: It was that fight that really catapulted me into the world of political battle. I had not been a member of a Party, I had never been to a political meeting before then. And you know, to see that all these groups which had joined together, and I came to it as a mother and medical doctor, very concerned about our health care system falling apart and also about an epidemic of chronic disease descending on our kids which as a mom I took really, really seriously and as a doctor was fighting it tooth and nail, saw that money was always taking over.
A number of groups got together across labor, environment, health care, you name it, and all of us said we've got a common predator here, it's money in politics. Let's get it out. We actually passed that referendum by a two to one margin.
BILL MOYERS: It's amazing actually.
JILL STEIN: Huge. And the minute we passed it the legislature began to resist it, to try not to fund it. And then finally they wound up repealing, as you said a legislature that was about 85 percent Democratic. So it could have, you know, overridden any veto and so on. It had the power to actually clean up our political system.
And that said to me the fight here is much bigger than any one issue. It's really about a political culture. If we want to fix what ails us we need to fundamentally fix the political system. At that point I was recruited to run to office and I did it as a desperation move. Everything else was failing us and I realized it was time to fundamentally transform our political system and work with a party that was actually committed to getting money out of politics.
So Charles, we can keep playing by the rules -- especially here in Texas, where there are no limits to campaign contributions -- and expect a different result someday, or we can work to change the game.
Everybody hopefully understands which side I'm on now.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Republicans declare war on themselves
Bombing the shit out of people on false pretenses is what they're good at, after all, but this is ridiculous. First it was El Rushbo, as part of a larger rant on The End of the World as They Know It (i.e. when Obama is re-elected)...
Then it was Laura Ingraham...
And today it's the political advisor to Todd Akin (who was the advisor to Newt Gingrich earlier in the year)...
So the talking points went out first thing Monday morning. Everybody outside of the establishment is on board. And the message is the same old, same old fear and loathing.
I'd like to pop some corn and just watch the implosion, but as much as I want it, it's not going to happen. This is just how the GOP motivates its base.
They have to stoke the xenophobia every week -- preferably every day -- and as ignorant as the people who listen to Limbaugh and Ingraham are, even they occasionally get wise to the manipulation. Besides that, it's difficult to come up with a new conspiracy theory every week.
"Pallin' around with terrists like Bill Ayers and Saul Alinsky", Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the birth certificate, no hand over his heart as the National Anthem is played, bowing before other world leaders, Fast and Furious, Soshulist/Muslim/"Arab"/Kenyan/Marxist/Communist and back to the start again. Did I leave anything out? Oh yeah, un-American, destroying this country, and worse than Jimmy Carter.
It's tiresome just typing that. Imagine how you'd feel constructing a rant around it every single day for the past four years. From the aspect of repetition, it's amazing that it's not winning.
That has to do mostly with the quality of Obama's competition.
The above is not just the last nail in the coffin of Romney's presidential hopes, it's also why the GOP isn't going anywhere, IMHO. Oh, they'll fuss and fight and scream and cry 60 days from now just as loudly as they did in mid-November of 2008, but they will always have Texas to fall back on.
John Cornyn won't even get any blowback from screwing up a Senate capture. He'll just pivot right with the rest of the establishment and blame Romney for being a weak-as-rainwater candidate.
He'll be correct.
If this nation survived George W Bush, it can surely survive Barack Obama. Besides, the decline is incremental no matter who gets elected. You know, we're all frogs in the boiling pot, anyway.
Now, if the Republicans nominate Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich in 2016... then we can talk about the end of the GOP.
(Limbaugh) went on to refer to MSNBC host Chris Matthews saying last week that an Obama re-election would mean the end of conservatism. “Nope,” Limbaugh disagreed, “if Obama wins, it’s the end of the Republican Party.”
“There’s going to be a third party that’s going to be orientated towards conservatism — or Rand Paul thinks libertarianism,” he continued. “If Obama wins, the Republican Party will try to maneuver things so conservatives get blamed. The only problem is right now, Romney is not running a conservative campaign.”
“But they’re going to set it up, ‘Well, the right sat home, the right made Romney be other than he is.’ They’ll try to deflect the blame, but they got who they want,” he said of the Republican Party’s selection of Mitt Romney for president.
Then it was Laura Ingraham...
During her syndicated radio program on Monday, conservative host Laura Ingraham had harsh words for the Republican Party and the way Mitt Romney‘s campaign has underperformed despite a flailing economy and high unemployment figures.
[...]
“If you can’t beat Barack Obama with this record, then shut down the party,” she said. “Shut it down, start new, with new people because this is a give-me election, or at least it should be.”
Ingraham added that part of the blame lies with political consultants who get re-hired after each failed presidential bid. She lamented the “millions and millions of dollars that are paid to these political consultants election after election. We hire people who have lost previous campaigns, that run campaigns that have failed, who have message campaigns where the message fell flat. And they keep getting rehired. I don’t understand that. I don’t know why those are the people you hire.”
And today it's the political advisor to Todd Akin (who was the advisor to Newt Gingrich earlier in the year)...
(Rick) Tyler replied that, if Obama wins and the GOP fails to retake the Senate, “I think that this Republican party will have to completely, utterly and totally revamp its thinking, its strategy, what it stands for, how it trains, what it speaks about, how it recruits and the total abandonment – actually the professionalization of the party – and the abandonment of the grassroots.”
“If we lose the race, we only have ourselves to blame and I think there will be a revolution in the Republican party,” Tyler concluded.
So the talking points went out first thing Monday morning. Everybody outside of the establishment is on board. And the message is the same old, same old fear and loathing.
I'd like to pop some corn and just watch the implosion, but as much as I want it, it's not going to happen. This is just how the GOP motivates its base.
They have to stoke the xenophobia every week -- preferably every day -- and as ignorant as the people who listen to Limbaugh and Ingraham are, even they occasionally get wise to the manipulation. Besides that, it's difficult to come up with a new conspiracy theory every week.
"Pallin' around with terrists like Bill Ayers and Saul Alinsky", Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the birth certificate, no hand over his heart as the National Anthem is played, bowing before other world leaders, Fast and Furious, Soshulist/Muslim/"Arab"/Kenyan/Marxist/Communist and back to the start again. Did I leave anything out? Oh yeah, un-American, destroying this country, and worse than Jimmy Carter.
It's tiresome just typing that. Imagine how you'd feel constructing a rant around it every single day for the past four years. From the aspect of repetition, it's amazing that it's not winning.
That has to do mostly with the quality of Obama's competition.
Sheryl Harris, a voluble 52-year-old with a Virginia drawl, voted twice for George W. Bush. Raised Baptist, she is convinced -- despite all evidence to the contrary -- that President Barack Obama, a practicing Christian, is Muslim.
So in this year's presidential election, will she support Mitt Romney? Not a chance.
"Romney's going to help the upper class," said Harris, who earns $28,000 a year as activities director of a Lynchburg senior center. "He doesn't know everyday people, except maybe the person who cleans his house."
She'll vote for Obama, she said: "At least he wasn't brought up filthy rich."
White lower- and middle-income voters such as Harris are wild cards in this vituperative presidential campaign. With only a sliver of the electorate in play nationwide, they could be a deciding factor in two southern swing states, Virginia and North Carolina.
Reuters/Ipsos polling data compiled over the past several months shows that, across the Bible Belt, 38 percent of these voters said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who is "very wealthy" than one who isn't. This is well above the 20 percent who said they would be less likely to vote for an African-American.
The above is not just the last nail in the coffin of Romney's presidential hopes, it's also why the GOP isn't going anywhere, IMHO. Oh, they'll fuss and fight and scream and cry 60 days from now just as loudly as they did in mid-November of 2008, but they will always have Texas to fall back on.
John Cornyn won't even get any blowback from screwing up a Senate capture. He'll just pivot right with the rest of the establishment and blame Romney for being a weak-as-rainwater candidate.
He'll be correct.
If this nation survived George W Bush, it can surely survive Barack Obama. Besides, the decline is incremental no matter who gets elected. You know, we're all frogs in the boiling pot, anyway.
Now, if the Republicans nominate Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich in 2016... then we can talk about the end of the GOP.
Nine Eleven Wrangle
Here is this week's roundup of blog posts from the best of the left of Texas from last week.
Off the Kuff says that the state of Texas has clearly demonstrated the ongoing need for Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
BossKitty at TruthHugger sees this election year faced with critical health issues hurting working class people, when bubonic plague and Legionnaire's disease and hantavirus still occur in America: are we Unprepared, Careless and Incapable In 2012?
The GOP's plan may have backfired; by intentionally discriminating they may have actually saved the Voting Rights Act. Because, as WCNews at Eye on Williamson shows, The Voting Rights Act is still working as designed.
Neil at Texas Liberal saw Mitt Romney's jet plane in Cincinnati last week. Neil offered up his view of what the letters on the tail of the plane were meant to convey.
Lightseeker at Texas Kaos reminds us that it is easy to throw the low-level supervisors to the wolves when scandal strikes, but we should not forget where the fundamental problem lies. Are you listening, Rick Perry and Republican legislators? Check out Behind the Drug and Rape Kit Scandals.
Rick Perry wants Texas women to get pap smears at colonoscopy clinics. CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme didn't think that even Rick Perry was that stupid.
Update: Here's my post from last year, on the tenth anniversary. It does seem as if the raw sensations have ebbed since then.
Monday, September 10, 2012
2012 Candidates Cafe' Dialogue Tuesday, Sept. 11
ACR Houston, the American Leadership Forum, and The Institute for Sustainable Peace will host the second Candidates Cafe' Dialogue at the United Way of Greater Houston, 50 Waugh Drive, on Tuesday September 11 from 6-8 p.m.
Several of the Green and Democratic candidates on the Harris County ballot will be in attendance. This is a facilitated forum of candidates and citizens; there will be four rounds and each facilitator will manage a table of 4 or 5 people in a structured non-partisan format to discuss pre-determined questions. The facilitator will guide everyone at the table to speak, to listen and to share positive ideas on the issues. A more detailed description of the evening's events can be found here. A summary...
The first Candidates Café Dialogue was held October 19, 2008, with 17 candidates for public office and 100 citizens participating. This second Dialogue aspires to host as many as 50 candidates and 250 citizens. This is an opportunity for candidates to converse with fellow citizens -- speaking and listening to each other -- about big issues that our region faces, such as water supply and quality; air quality; parks, trails & trees; mass transit; education for a dependable work force and green building.
Several of the Green and Democratic candidates on the Harris County ballot will be in attendance. This is a facilitated forum of candidates and citizens; there will be four rounds and each facilitator will manage a table of 4 or 5 people in a structured non-partisan format to discuss pre-determined questions. The facilitator will guide everyone at the table to speak, to listen and to share positive ideas on the issues. A more detailed description of the evening's events can be found here. A summary...
Our country is becoming increasingly polarized and unable to bridge our divisions to find real world, non-partisan solutions for the very complex problems we face. Houston’s leaders have a history of coming together across political and ethnic divisions to build a thriving community. That ability to work together is very much a part of the “can do” spirit that has built Houston.The intense polarization and absence of civil discourse becomes even more evident during the campaign season preceding an election. What if it were possible for political campaigns to elevate civil discourse? That question led to the idea of convening the first Candidate Café Dialogue, and continues to inspire us.
You are invited to join the discussion. RSVP at this link.
Republican Just Us in Harris County
Whether the charge is robbery, shoplifting or drug use, most people arrested in Harris County stay in jail because they can't afford to post bail.
That's largely because this conservative county and its judges have been reluctant to grant no-cost personal bonds that are increasingly popular in other large metropolitan areas in Texas, say attorneys, judges and those in the bail bond industry.
"There's no good reason for it,'' said Mark Hochglaube, the trial division chief of the Harris County Public Defenders Office. "I can't speak for what they do in other counties, but I can tell you the general sense of the culture here is one that is opposed to pretrial release. I wish it weren't, but it's as basic as that."
Last year, just 5.2 percent of slightly more than 94,000 people arrested by Harris County police agencies got out of jail on no-cost personal recognizance bonds, according to a report by the Harris County Pretrial Services office. In July, 65 percent of the county's 9,133 inmates were pretrial detainees rather than convicted criminals serving sentences, according to the Office of Criminal Justice Coordination.
"That's disgustingly high," said Chris Tritico, president of the Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association. "A lot of those people could be out working, supporting their families and awaiting their day in court. Just because you can't afford a lawyer and a bond, that doesn't make you guilty."
The best comment from that article follows.
We must have people committing crimes and being in jail. If we cut back on any of it, we would have thousands of lawyers, prosecutors, judges, bail bondsmen, police, jailers, prison guards, prison and jail management people, probation workers, parole supervisors and jail and prison suppliers out of work...the economy would be devastated. The Criminal Justice System is big business and fast growing.
More from the article.
(B)ond practices in Harris County force some innocent defendants to plead guilty because they'd rather accept a plea deal and a short sentence than spend months in jail waiting for a trial. In a few cases, he said, defendants have been held awaiting trial longer than the maximum sentence they could have received.
"It's not just a failure of the judges, the district attorney - it's everybody. It's a failure of the defense bar. Even good attorneys don't ask for a personal bond. Everyone is indoctrinated with the idea that if you are charged with a felony you're not going to get a PR bond," said Hochglaube.
That would even be true in the case of people charged with felonies who were framed by undercover police officers. Yes, some of those port protestors are still in county lockup, and have been since December.
Keep in mind that all of this results in overcrowded jails, which sends the Harris County Sheriff to Commissioners Court to request construction of additional detention facilities. Usually the voters are disinclined to approve bond issues for jail construction, as former city councilwoman Melissa Noriega noted here, so the problem persists. But when the bonds do get approved and the construction bids awarded, the pals of the commissioners with construction companies get real happy.
So it's a win for everybody involved in the criminal justice "industry"... except for, you know, justice.
Let's not overlook the fact that this is only the beginning. After the bonding (or not) and the trial come the convictions and the sentencing. The private prison system we have in Texas depends on corporations that have quarterly profit projections -- and stockholder demands -- to meet. This requires a steadily increasing flow of new "customers".
And the corporations running our prisons -- just like the bail bondsmen named Kubosh in the article -- must, in turn, keep contributing to the Republicans running for judgeships and sheriff and district attorney on a "tuff on crime" agenda to keep sending them those customers... by conning a gullible, poorly-informed, slow-witted base into voting for them. Over and over again.
There's a way to break this cycle. It starts by not voting for any Republicans.
I have already identified a few judges and a sheriff candidate whom you should vote for. I will present more qualified names in the coming days and weeks. And there will be plenty of Libertarians on your ballot if you simply can't bring yourself to vote for a Democrat.
Kuff and Grits have been on this case a lot longer than I have.
Sunday, September 09, 2012
Democrats still waiting on a saviour
FiveThirtyEight's Micah Cohn has the seasonal "waiting for the Latinos to turn Texas blue" post, written by someone every few months now for at least the past decade. Finally though, there was some revealing news...
"As goes Tarrant County, so goes Texas". I hope some local pollsters pick up on this with some Tarrant County data as we draw closer to November. Those numbers have been approximately 55% R and 41% D, by the way. So there's a long way still to go.
Some think the Lone Star will get redder before it gets bluer. I think that is less likely to be true in 2012 than in 2014 (as it is in every off-presidential year).
And while there are still many Dems pushing back on the twin obstacle of Texas' role as ATM to the rest of the country's Democratic campaigns, it was Michael Li's Facebook page -- an interesting place for discussion among Texas Democrats -- that recently revealed there are many Democrats who think a key to victory still lies in turning out Blue Dogs in East Texas.
What a sick sad delusion these people operate under. Those Democrats are all dead now, and the ones that are still alive have been lobotomized, their brains replaced by Fox News. They are part of the Zombie TeaBagger Apocalypse. Here's just one anecdotal piece of evidence of that folly, from Isiah Carey's Insite today. All the Democrats in East Texas who used to hold office switched parties before they eventually lost to a Tea Party primary challenge. Even the former Democratic strongholds in Southeast Texas -- Jefferson, Orange, Hardin -- are turning red.
Texas Democrats are indeed constrained by several things -- poor organization, no money, an ingrained defeatist attitude, backbiting and infighting -- but the main thing that plagues them is that they increasingly are indistinguishable from Republicans (or rather, what Republicans used to be). This has been obvious to everybody but them going back to the 2000 presidential campaign of George W Bush, when he used his 'record of bipartisanship' as governor to tout himself as an agent of change in Washington. The running joke they didn't get was "Democrats in Texas are Republicans everywhere else".
Another sick sad joke, but thankfully water long since passed under the bridge.
The problem in Texas -- and in the nation -- is that we have one radically conservative corporate party, and one moderately conservative corporate party. When Democrats continue to operate under the paradigm that more money is the answer to their problems, they just perpetuate their losing mentality. The only people who win that game are the consultants. Update: This is more of it, particularly the horse-race-like aspect of reporting it. Just like the daily polling numbers, you can almost hear Tick-Tock McLaughlin's voice at Santa Anita.
One day, in-between waiting for the Latinos and waiting for someone(s) with a massive bank account to show up and save them, they might come to the realization that the right message coupled with sizable sweat equity might be all they ever have, and they could get better results if they would focus on those two.
In the meantime, the Green Party will concentrate on doing those two very things, primarily in the state's five major metro areas, making things still more complicated for Democrats.
Someone will fill the void. Something always does.
Non-Hispanic whites are still a slim majority in Tarrant County, which helps make it a much better statewide bellwether than Dallas County. Tarrant County exactly matched the statewide vote in 2008, and was just 1 percentage point more Republican in both 2004 and 2000.
"As goes Tarrant County, so goes Texas". I hope some local pollsters pick up on this with some Tarrant County data as we draw closer to November. Those numbers have been approximately 55% R and 41% D, by the way. So there's a long way still to go.
Some think the Lone Star will get redder before it gets bluer. I think that is less likely to be true in 2012 than in 2014 (as it is in every off-presidential year).
And while there are still many Dems pushing back on the twin obstacle of Texas' role as ATM to the rest of the country's Democratic campaigns, it was Michael Li's Facebook page -- an interesting place for discussion among Texas Democrats -- that recently revealed there are many Democrats who think a key to victory still lies in turning out Blue Dogs in East Texas.
What a sick sad delusion these people operate under. Those Democrats are all dead now, and the ones that are still alive have been lobotomized, their brains replaced by Fox News. They are part of the Zombie TeaBagger Apocalypse. Here's just one anecdotal piece of evidence of that folly, from Isiah Carey's Insite today. All the Democrats in East Texas who used to hold office switched parties before they eventually lost to a Tea Party primary challenge. Even the former Democratic strongholds in Southeast Texas -- Jefferson, Orange, Hardin -- are turning red.
Texas Democrats are indeed constrained by several things -- poor organization, no money, an ingrained defeatist attitude, backbiting and infighting -- but the main thing that plagues them is that they increasingly are indistinguishable from Republicans (or rather, what Republicans used to be). This has been obvious to everybody but them going back to the 2000 presidential campaign of George W Bush, when he used his 'record of bipartisanship' as governor to tout himself as an agent of change in Washington. The running joke they didn't get was "Democrats in Texas are Republicans everywhere else".
Another sick sad joke, but thankfully water long since passed under the bridge.
The problem in Texas -- and in the nation -- is that we have one radically conservative corporate party, and one moderately conservative corporate party. When Democrats continue to operate under the paradigm that more money is the answer to their problems, they just perpetuate their losing mentality. The only people who win that game are the consultants. Update: This is more of it, particularly the horse-race-like aspect of reporting it. Just like the daily polling numbers, you can almost hear Tick-Tock McLaughlin's voice at Santa Anita.
One day, in-between waiting for the Latinos and waiting for someone(s) with a massive bank account to show up and save them, they might come to the realization that the right message coupled with sizable sweat equity might be all they ever have, and they could get better results if they would focus on those two.
In the meantime, the Green Party will concentrate on doing those two very things, primarily in the state's five major metro areas, making things still more complicated for Democrats.
Someone will fill the void. Something always does.
Friday, September 07, 2012
DNC Convention Humor
It's not too snarky.
Last, the convention that the Republicans saw when they did have their TVs on and tuned to Fox.
More here. Remember, conservatives: we're not laughing with you, we're laughing at you.
POLL: Race Close Among Voters Without Working Televisions #DNC
— Andy Borowitz (@BorowitzReport) September 7, 2012
Last, the convention that the Republicans saw when they did have their TVs on and tuned to Fox.
With the savage roar of the heathen Democratic horde rising all around him, President Barack Obama delivered an incendiary speech to close his party’s national convention Thursday night, commanding the ultraprogressive minions in attendance to help him “destroy Jesus and usher in a new age of liberal darkness that shall reign o’er the earth for a thousand years.”
The thunderous 45-minute address—during which the president argued for a second term so that he could “finally kill Jesus once and for all, as well as all those who worship him”—was well received by the frenzied, wild-eyed audience, whose piercing chants of “Four more years!” and “Slaughter the believers!” echoed throughout the Time Warner Cable Arena.
“My fellow Americans and godless infidels, I command you to join me as we cast an endless pall of far-left evil across the hills and valleys of our nation!” Obama bellowed from the stage, as thousands in attendance moaned in compliance and gyrated their hips and groins in a lascivious dance. “Together, as a barbarian people forged by the wicked flames of irreligiosity and united by visions of a liberal dystopia, we will rise up as one to scorch the earth with boundless amorality.”
“The streets shall run red with the blood of forced sodomy, performed daily upon every American man, woman, and child!” the commander-in-chief shouted, froth forming around his mouth as the crowd threw hundreds of aborted fetuses onto the stage. “Die, Christians, die!”
More here. Remember, conservatives: we're not laughing with you, we're laughing at you.
Thursday, September 06, 2012
Lloyd Oliver stays on the ballot
As I thought.
Someone please hand Lane and Gerry a few towels to wipe off the carton of eggs that's all over their faces.
Two last things from the article.
I believe they're both in Charlotte leading cheers at the moment.
It would be best if they didn't, seeing as how the lovefest in North Carolina is going. Obama is likely to provide coattails as lengthy as 2008... if the locals don't screw it up in the next 50 days or so.
Seriously, fellas: don't keep stepping on your dicks. Oliver might even get enough sympathy momentum from Republicans who supported Lykos to win the DA race. What are you going to do then with your track record of obstruction of democracy?
Let it go. Not another word about him. See if he can win on his own, and then perhaps Harris County will have a district attorney beholden to no party. Even as stupid as Lloyd Oliver is, that might be a good thing.
Update: Texas Lawyer's Tex Parte has more, and Ted Oberg at KTRK had the best reporting, including this video of a couple of difficult questions for the plaintiff's counsel, former 55th District Court Judge Dion Ramos.
Ramos, swept out of office in the Red Tea Tide of 2010, looks and sounds awfully sorry he got this case.
Lloyd Oliver may be a pariah to his party, but he remained on the November ballot as the Democratic nominee for Harris County district attorney Wednesday after a state district judge rejected the Democratic Party's attempt to oust him from the ticket.
Someone please hand Lane and Gerry a few towels to wipe off the carton of eggs that's all over their faces.
The Democratic Party announced it was taking Oliver's name off the ballot last week.
Wednesday's ruling comes one day before Harris County Clerk Stan Stanart must get ballots printed in time for overseas and absentee voting.
"I don't think that what happened amounted to a rule violation under party rules," Burke said after a two-hour hearing on Wednesday morning.
Oliver admitted saying that he would have voted for Lykos had he not been running against her. He told the court Wednesday that he made the statement the day after the primary, so she technically no longer was a candidate. He also argued that the party rule applied only to chairmen and other Democratic officials.
"I have a First Amendment right to compliment public officials," he told the court.
The judge agreed.
"I don't think that amounts to an endorsement of the Republican candidate, since she had been defeated by then, and it was coupled with a swipe at the prevailing candidate, Mike Anderson," Burke said.
Two last things from the article.
Neither Lewis nor Birnberg returned calls for comment Wednesday.
I believe they're both in Charlotte leading cheers at the moment.
Attorneys for the Democratic Party said they have not decided whether to appeal.
It would be best if they didn't, seeing as how the lovefest in North Carolina is going. Obama is likely to provide coattails as lengthy as 2008... if the locals don't screw it up in the next 50 days or so.
Seriously, fellas: don't keep stepping on your dicks. Oliver might even get enough sympathy momentum from Republicans who supported Lykos to win the DA race. What are you going to do then with your track record of obstruction of democracy?
Let it go. Not another word about him. See if he can win on his own, and then perhaps Harris County will have a district attorney beholden to no party. Even as stupid as Lloyd Oliver is, that might be a good thing.
Update: Texas Lawyer's Tex Parte has more, and Ted Oberg at KTRK had the best reporting, including this video of a couple of difficult questions for the plaintiff's counsel, former 55th District Court Judge Dion Ramos.
Ramos, swept out of office in the Red Tea Tide of 2010, looks and sounds awfully sorry he got this case.
Bubbalicious
Thanks to Mediaite for that.
You can go on and read all that if you didn't watch. There's also video. Let's get this over with, though, for the sake of sensitivity to the other side.
What The Big Dog is, is a closer.
He's better at it than the best car salesman on Planet Earth. Better than Alec Baldwin in Glengarry Glen Ross. "Second prize is a set of steak knives."
Bill Clinton, the guy that The Most Interesting Man in the World is modeled after, has tapped so much ass -- scattered liberally across seven continents; yes, even Antarctica -- that most conservatives can't even count that high. He puts Wilt Chamberlain to absolute shame. Check this out from the Onion.
And THAT's how the cow eats the cabbage. Any questions?
Clinton fixed the first Bush economy trainwreck and still found time for a handful of chippies on the side. Obama, of course, still has both hands full with a much bigger mess.
See, this is all you need to remember: Republicans fall in line, but Democrats have to fall in love.
Yeah, they're swooning in Charlotte, the headliner is tonight, and it all spells blue wave disaster for the Bloods. Nancy Pelosi's slip of confidence is showing.
Good luck in 2016, GOP. Take comfort in the fact that this doesn't dent the status quo in Texas all that much.
Former President Bill Clinton injected some of his gigawatt political star power into President Obama‘s reelection effort Wednesday night with a rousing speech to the Democratic National Convention, capped off by a last-minute appearance onstage by the incumbent nominee himself. With his trademark wit and charm, and his hard-won statesmanlike gravity, President Clinton made President Obama’s case for reelection persuasively and convincingly.
You can go on and read all that if you didn't watch. There's also video. Let's get this over with, though, for the sake of sensitivity to the other side.
What The Big Dog is, is a closer.
He's better at it than the best car salesman on Planet Earth. Better than Alec Baldwin in Glengarry Glen Ross. "Second prize is a set of steak knives."
Bill Clinton, the guy that The Most Interesting Man in the World is modeled after, has tapped so much ass -- scattered liberally across seven continents; yes, even Antarctica -- that most conservatives can't even count that high. He puts Wilt Chamberlain to absolute shame. Check this out from the Onion.
During his speech Wednesday evening at the Democratic National Convention in downtown Charlotte, former U.S. president Bill Clinton finally just unzipped his fly and showed the entire country his penis.
[...]
“So should we just get this over with then?” the president asked the 20,000-member audience, as well as millions watching the nationwide telecast. “Should I show you my penis?”
Immediately after Clinton asked this question, there was reportedly a brief pause, after which a few murmured consents of approval were audible in the crowd, as well as a number of voices clearly shouting “okay” and “sure.”
Sources said the sounds of convention attendees shifting in their seats could then be heard as the president stepped forward to the end of the stage.
“Okay, I’m going to show you my penis now,” said the former president, his hand reaching for his pants zipper as a dead quiet fell over the arena. “Wow. You know, it’s funny, now that it’s finally happening, I actually feel a little nervous. I think it’s good that I’m doing it, but still… Okay, here goes.”
And THAT's how the cow eats the cabbage. Any questions?
Clinton fixed the first Bush economy trainwreck and still found time for a handful of chippies on the side. Obama, of course, still has both hands full with a much bigger mess.
See, this is all you need to remember: Republicans fall in line, but Democrats have to fall in love.
Yeah, they're swooning in Charlotte, the headliner is tonight, and it all spells blue wave disaster for the Bloods. Nancy Pelosi's slip of confidence is showing.
Good luck in 2016, GOP. Take comfort in the fact that this doesn't dent the status quo in Texas all that much.
Wednesday, September 05, 2012
Convention speakers Castro, Rubio highlight Latino divide between Mexican- and Cuban-Americans
This is what I was talking about last week.
The Hispanics with the highest profiles in this year's political conventions, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Mayor Julian Castro of San Antonio, stand as opposites in a cultural and political split that has divided millions of U.S. Latinos for decades.
Republicans chose Rubio, who is Cuban-American, to introduce Mitt Romney at the party's convention last week. Democrats, meeting this week in Charlotte, N.C., picked Castro, who is Mexican-American, as keynote speaker, the role that launched a young Barack Obama to national political prominence.Although they often are lumped together as Hispanics, Rubio and Castro are emblematic of acute political distinctions between Mexican-Americans, who are the largest Latino group in the U.S., and Cuban-Americans, who are the most politically active. Despite their shared language, these two constituencies have different histories in the United States and are subjected to distinctions in immigration policy that go easier on Cuban immigrants."Historically, many Cuban-Americans for the last few decades have tended to be a little more conservative. So it's not surprising that you would see Sen. Rubio and the Republican nominee for Senate in Texas, Ted Cruz, running as Republicans," Castro told The Associated Press. "And I don't begrudge them for that. I think the policies they espouse are wrong, are not the best ones. But, you know, they're doing what they believe. And I applaud them for that."[...]Moises Venegas, a retired Mexican-American educator and Latino community activist in Albuquerque, N.M., said the two groups have little in common besides an historical connection to Spain, and Spanish surnames."The Cubans have never been one of us," Venegas said. "They didn't come from Chihuahua or Sonora in Mexico and from poor backgrounds. They came from affluent backgrounds and have a different perspective. The Republican Party also has opened doors just for them."Pedro Roig, a Cuban-American attorney and senior researcher at the Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies in Miami, disputed the notion that there is significant rivalry between the groups. He attributes divisions between Cuban- and Mexican-Americans in part to geography and noted that many in the Cuban community admire Castro's selection as the Democrats' keynote speaker.
This has been precisely my own experience; Mexicanos hold more than a little simmering resentment toward Cubanos, while the Cubans don't give a damn what anybody thinks.
Yes, there is some elitism demonstrated by Cuban-Americans. Many of them are lighter complected and thus can "pass" as Caucasian, for starters. Calle Ocho, the heart of Miami's Cuban community, is somewhat insular and distinct, whereas the places where Mexicans first settled in El Norte -- San Diego, El Paso, and Laredo come to mind -- are so blended now as to be barely considered singularly 'Mexican'. Santa Fe, NM, like so many great American cities, was a Spanish outpost with many Native American roots -- Pueblo, Navajo, Tewa. The Aztecs and Mayans are also of Mexican origin. (Did you know that the word "Anahuac" is an Aztec word for the civilized time before the Spanish arrived? I did not.)
The indigenous people of Mexico -- as in the United States -- were what we (white eyes) once called "Indians", of course.
Of the 52 million Latinos in the U.S., 33 million are of Mexican descent, followed by 4.7 million who are Puerto Rican and 1.9 million of Cuban descent, Pew Hispanic Center numbers show. The remaining 10 largest Latino groups are Salvadorans, 1.8 million; Dominicans, 1.5 million; Guatemalans, 1.1 million; Colombians, 972,000; Hondurans, 731,000; Ecuadorians, 665,000; and Peruvians, 609,000, the center reported.In 2008, 9.7 million Latino voters cast ballots in the presidential election, and 5.2 million were Mexican-Americans, about 45 percent of eligible Mexican-American voters, according to Pew Hispanic Center data. When it comes to showing up at the polls, however, Cuban-Americans outpace Mexican-Americans — some 713,000 Cuban-Americans showed up to vote in 2008, 69 percent of eligible Cuban-American voters, the center found.Obama won 47 percent of the Cuban vote in Florida that year, according to data from The Associated Press.In Texas, some Republican candidates garner roughly 30 percent of the Hispanic vote, which is overwhelmingly Mexican-American, said Antonio Gonzalez, president of the San Antonio-based Southwest Voter Education Project.
Go to the article to read more about one of the friction points between the subgroups: immigration. A snip more...
While some Cuban-Americans have hoped for decades for a return to a free Cuba, many Mexican-Americans recognize parts of the U.S. as historically Mexican. "We didn't cross the border, the border crossed us," is a favorite refrain. Mexican immigration has fed much of the U.S. population growth in recent decades.DeeDee Blase, founder of the Arizona-based Tequila Party, an independent political group made up largely of Mexican-Americans, said Cuban-Americans have failed to support policies important to Mexican-Americans, like immigration reform and health care, while wanting Latinos to rally around the trade embargo on Cuba. Blase is Mexican-American.Guarione Diaz, outgoing president of Miami-based Cuban-American National Council, said resentments are disappearing as more Mexican-Americans have moved to Miami and more non-Cuban politicians are elected to offices with heavy Cuban support. Intermarriage between the groups has bridged the divides along with growing Latino unity around equal access issues, Gonzalez said.
So it will be interesting to see if the dynamic of Gilberto Hinojosa suggesting that Ted Cruz is a coconut continues to be a political tactic used to motivate (a specific origin-based subset of) Latino voters in Texas. A tactic that would backfire in Florida.
And I will ask again: is all this -- as in love, war, and the rest of politics -- fair?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)