Sunday Funnies: Legacy polishing

You might notice a theme

"Fox News tells us that torture is wonderful, that we have saved humanity because we torture, and that Jack Bauer is a real-life hero because he always foils the bad guys and saves American lives because he tortures them into revealing where the ticking time bomb is! These 'religious' people must be Devil-worshipers because Fox News tells us that God wants us to torture people. After all, if God didn’t support torture, why did he allow his son to be tortured to death on the cross?"

Uh oh. That ought to wake a few people up. From the comments here.

"Many people will disagree over many aspects of the Bush legacy, but on Katrina ... It is impossible to challenge what so many of us witnessed firsthand, what the entire country witnessed through the images on our television screens day and night. Mr. President, you cannot pat yourself on the back for that one. We will debate the war in Iraq, debate national security, the economy, and the rest of your legacy. Those debates will continue for years to come. But on how you handled Katrina, there is no debate."

-- Campbell Brown

Nearly all the Republicans I know who stepped off the Bush bus called Katrina the straw that broke the camel's back for them.

Even during the anti-GOP climate of last year's campaign, you'd have been hard pressed to find someone who seriously believed the Democrats could make a real play for one of Texas' Senate seats. But now, Politico reports, Republicans are asking Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison to remain in her post and not run for governor -- they're worried her retirement could be the key piece of the puzzle for Democrats looking to get a 60-seat super-majority in the Senate.

In part, the concern is that the GOP would have to expend precious resources defending what should be a safe seat, resources that they'll need both to prevent losses in swing states and to have any shot at capturing a Democrat's spot. But there is a certain amount of worry that the party could actually lose Hutchison's seat if she runs for governor, and besides -- the idea that Republicans would have to spend money on a Senate race in Texas would have been crazy earlier this decade.

This could be the first sign of a very real danger for the GOP. The state has been a stronghold, and considering its 34 Electoral College votes, it's a vital one. But several experts I spoke to for an article I wrote in November about the Hispanic vote said they believed the state's sizeable Hispanic population could make Democrats a real force in Texas within the next decade. "The future's bright in Texas," Cuauhtemoc "Temo" Figueroa, the Obama campaign's Latino vote director, said. "Whether in four years or whether in eight years, I do see potential there in Texas, because of just the sheer magnitude of the numbers."

It's always the Bronx lament: "Just wait'll next year." But even the Dodgers managed a World Series title over the Yanks.

Dinner with John Sharp and a photo with James Rodriguez

Two items creating a minor stir in the blogosphere. Matt and Vince had a sit-down with Sharp at Sullivan's Monday night ( I was invited but was unable to be in Austin for the session's opening). Matt wasn't bowled over:

Sharp is knowledgeable on the history of our party in Texas. His credentials are hard to argue with, but he has made some choice that make it hard to call him a Democratic devotee. Something White can't claim either after this election cycle.

However as much as I disagreed with Sharp on certain points, it was hard not to be impressed that he was courting the online community. The over-priced steaks, sides, and cocktails made that clear, but what wasn't clear is why. He clearly has an antiquated way of looking at the possible solutions to our economic plight. He rarely offered a statement of hope or a vision for a better tomorrow. What we heard was doom and gloom over ahi tuna and potatoes au gratin.

The event only left me more skeptical than when I entered.

I remain uncommitted in the race, but I also remain unimpressed and uneasy. It is hard to imagine a world were the Republican Party actually let's Kay run for Governor. While she might loathe, D.C. the margins are too narrow for the Republican Party to let her go quietly into the sunset and run for her dream job.

For a race that doesn't exist yet, we give it too many mentions and too many inches. We are being courted, but not the way it needs to happen. Chocolate fountains will never be the way. As one blogger put it tonight, a phone call or personal e-mail will suffice or perhaps a cup of coffee or a bagel.

It was interesting to meet John Sharp. His story is one of the final chapters of Democratic dominance in Texas, but his legacy may not be Texas' future.

But Vince was:

Given that it was a blogger gathering, Sharp also got a lot of questions about strategy–specifically strategies about a statewide GOTV effort. Though we’re not going to go into details on that so as not to let Republicans know what his early strategy is, Sharp has a plan for a statewide GOTV effort that would be a much greater and truly statewide effort that we haven’t seen in Texas in a while. And, we’re not talking a bunch of robocalls, either.

On that topic, it is interesting to note that Sharp grasps an important point: East Texas can’t be written off in a statewide campaign. For one thing, it is necessary to run up numbers in East Texas to offset Republican strongholds like Collin County.

Sharp, who is Catholic, also clarified his stance on a woman’s right to choose. Sharp has been referred to as “pro-life,” in a number of instances, but to take that to mean he is anti-choice is simply incorrect, as we heard tonight.

The best way of saying it is that Sharp, along with most people, doesn’t like abortions. But, overturning Roe v. Wade is another story. While Sharp, as a Catholic doesn’t like the practice, he does not believe it is appropriate for lawmakers (or anyone), “to say that because you don’t agree with [me] on that issue, you are a criminal or it should be made criminal or you should go to jail.”

Here is what I took from the discussion, and I think it is an accurate assessment: Sharp is both pro-life and pro-choice. While he may personally dislike the thought of an abortion (pro-life), he’s not going to vote to take away a woman’s right to choose (pro-choice). It is a sentiment similar to the one expressed by Chris Bell and other statewide candidates in 2006, and legislative candidates in 2008. As a progressive, it is a statement I’m comfortable with, because I don’t believe we’d see John Sharp vote against confirmation of a pro-choice judicial nominee or vote for additional restrictions on a woman’s right to choose. I may be wrong, but that is what I took away from the discussion.

And Mean Rachel didn't like Vince's take. Meanwhile Neal at Texas Liberal has stirred up a little something with this:

Should we trust Councilman Rodriguez? Will he be an effective representative of Houston’s Hispanic population, and for all persons in his district and in our city?

In Houston, it can be hard to pin down just where our political leaders stand. Party identification is easily obscured in our so-called non-partisan municipal elections. (Voter turnout is always low. And once elected, incumbent councilmembers are nearly unaccountable at the ballot box until term limits force them out.) Take, for example, the photo above. In the center you see Republican Bill King. On either side of Mr. King are members of his so-called issue study group.

Mr. King has been considering a run for citywide office in 2009. So why is a Democrat like Mr. Rodriguez sitting with Mr. King? Seated to the right of Mr. King is Democratic State Representative Senfronia Thompson and, next to Rep. Thompson, one Jessica Colon. Ms. Colon is identified as ”national chair of the Young Republicans.”

Neil also posted responses to that from Carl Whitmarsh and others who reacted with disdain. Stace also had a comment about Rodriguez.

These items are worth following because our little blogger's clubhouse is still growing in influence. That we disagree over candidates and campaigns, and don't simply blow one horn or sound the same tune reflects IMHO a healthy diversity.

Be sure and follow the conversations.

The festivities today *updated*

... at the Pink Dome are televised here for those of us who cannot be there in person.

Tom Craddick's BFF Frank Corte gave up his big office in the Capitol so that Otto wouldn't have to be in the extension:

In his final days as House speaker, Tom Craddick escaped what might have been severe Capitol culture shock – plummeting from a plush, newly renovated, historic apartment behind the House chamber to a meager underground office that amounts to a closet.

But, as they've done for most of his tenure, his Republican friends in the House came to his aid at the last second, made sacrifices, created a new rule, and yanked him back from the precipice.

Rep. Frank Corte, a House committee chairman elected 15 years ago, took one for the team and gave Craddick his airy, first-floor digs. He didn't want to see Craddick forced to trade offices with Joe Straus, elected four years go, who is about to replace him in the speaker's chair. ...

The office shuffle comes as Craddick prepares to step down after six years at the helm – and just two years after spending $1 million in private donations to turn the run-down speaker's apartment, the only one of its kind in the country, into a high-class living space for him and his wife, Nadine. ...

Offices are doled out partly based on seniority, and proximity to the House chamber is a rough measurement of power. Once members pick their offices, they have them until they either choose to change or they leave their posts. Every session, there's a little shuffle – members depart and leave vacant gorgeous offices with balconies and picture windows.

Normally, Craddick would have his pick of the offices, since he's been there longer than any other lawmaker. But by the time it became clear he would no longer be speaker, members had long since moved into their offices. ...

Craddick had asked if he could get his pre-speakership office back, but that's now occupied by Rep. Al Edwards –- a longtime Houston Democrat returning to the House after being out for one term.

On Friday morning, Edwards, having fought hard for his first-floor digs, declined to give them up. Corte insisted that Craddick take his.

What a guy.

Two years ago this morning, I and a couple of hundred others were on our way to Austin for the inauguration of Borris Miles as the new representative of HD-146, and the drama swirling around the speaker's race. Yesterday, Miles went on trial:

A former state lawmaker accused of pulling a pistol during a party and at a Houston Rockets game goes on trial Monday in a case that could sent him to jail if he is convicted.

Borris Miles, who was defeated in the Democratic primary last year in his bid for another term, is charged with two counts of deadly conduct. The charge is a Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail and a $4,000 fine on each count if he is convicted.

A six-member jury was chosen Monday in County Court 13 and is scheduled to begin hearing testimony this afternoon before Court at Law Judge Mark Atkinson.

Miles was indicted in connection with two incidents that took place in December 2007. He has pleaded not guilty.

In the first incident, Miles is accused of showing a pistol and threatening Texas Southern University regent Willard Jackson and his wife during a Rockets game at the Toyota Center.

The second incident occurred at the St. Regis Hotel ballroom, where Miles is accused of displaying a pistol and forcibly kissing another man’s wife while crashing a party.

World keeps turnin'.

Update (1/16): Not guilty. I'm pretty sure Greg knows the difference between 'not guilty' and 'innocent'. Muse has the merlot details.

A pre-legislative session Wrangle

It's the day before the 81st session of the Texas Legislature convenes; time for another edition of the Texas Progressive Alliance's weekly blog round up. Each week's round-up is compiled based on submissions made by member bloggers.

Nine days remaining

... to remind Republicans just what they hath wrought upon the Earth:

Asked by People magazine what moments from the last eight years he revisited most often, W. talked passionately about the pitch he threw out at the World Series in 2001: “I never felt that anxious any other time during my presidency, curiously enough.”

Asked by Fred Barnes and Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard if he had made progress in some areas for which he hasn’t gotten credit, the president put trying to privatize Social Security at the top of his list. It’s frightening to think where a lot of people would be now if that effort had succeeded.

A complete lack of guilt, much less empathy. That's typically how sociopaths are clinically described. Some think Bush is simply too brain-damaged or retarded or autistic or something-else-impaired to get it. I'm not one of those, however. He's quite obviously not the only one, nor even the worst, for that matter ...

Asked last week by Mark Knoller of CBS Radio in one of his exit interviews to name the “biggest mis-impression” people had about him, Cheney replied with a laugh, “That I’m actually a warm, lovable sort.” He went on to seriously assert that his image as “a private, Darth Vader-type personality” has been “pretty dramatically overdone.”

“I think we made good decisions,” he told Knoller, adding with even grander delusion, “I think we knew what we were doing.”

He protested “the notion that somehow I was pulling strings or making presidential-level decisions. I was not. There was never any question about who was in charge. It was George Bush. And that’s the way we operated. This whole notion that somehow I exceeded my authority here, was usurping his authority, is simply not true. It’s an urban legend, never happened.”

This is the most obvious reason why Cheney should simply be turned over to extra-national authorities for prosecution; so that someone can finally impress upon him the seriousness of his crimes. It's not like a Democratic Congress led by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid -- or a president hungry for bipartisanship -- is going to concern itself with administering some justice in this area.

On the other hand, Donald Rumsfeld should just be taken out and summarily executed by firing squad:

“My conscience is clear,” Rummy volunteered to Bob Woodward, talking about how he’s interviewing people for his memoir.

Woodward was stunned. “I was as speechless as I was in July 2006 when I interviewed him and he said he was not a military commander, that he could make the case that he was ‘by indirection, two or three steps removed,’ ” Woodward told me afterward.

What about Herr General Rove? He's still working a few "problems":

What was considered a smooth path to confirmation has recently been complicated as signs of hostility toward (Attorney-General-designate Eric) Holder have increased over the past month. Political operative Karl Rove and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), for example, singled out the longtime Washington lawyer as the candidate who would face bruising questions.

And Beto Gonzales? Stupid, malicious, or maliciously stupid? You decide:

"What is it that I did that is so fundamentally wrong, that deserves this kind of response to my service?" he said during an interview Tuesday, offering his most extensive comments since leaving government.

During a lunch meeting two blocks from the White House, where he served under his longtime friend, President George W. Bush, Mr. Gonzales said that "for some reason, I am portrayed as the one who is evil in formulating policies that people disagree with. I consider myself a casualty, one of the many casualties of the war on terror."

Republican Poutrage over Senator Franken

Six years of suck-it for conservatives:

With only a longshot court appeal standing in the way of Democrat Al Franken’s election to the Senate, Republicans are gritting their teeth and bracing for the arrival of a new senator whose every utterance will sound like nails on a chalkboard to them.

While Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) has filed suit to contest the results of a disputed recount process that turned his narrow lead into a 225-vote deficit, his likely defeat stands to turn Franken, the polarizing former “Saturday Night Live” writer, into the senator who launched a thousand direct mail fundraising appeals.

“I don’t know if we’ve ever had an opponent who is so disliked by Republicans as Al Franken,” said Minnesota Republican Party Chair Ron Carey, who cautioned that Coleman’s election challenge could still turn the results back his way. “It’s one thing to lose to an honorable opponent, but Al Franken is not considered an honorable opponent by Minnesota Republicans.”

And here I was thinking I was just going to feel gratified that a true Minnesota liberal was going to Washington to reclaim Paul Welllstone's desk. To know that the Republicks are this bitter about Senator Stuart Smalley is ... well, pretty freaking schadenfreude.

Domingo Cómico

What do you call a newspaper without a printing press?

Or one that doesn't print a paper at all? Serious question.

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, which first rolled off the presses in 1863 and has been the state's longest-publishing newspaper, is up for sale.

The newspaper's staff was called into a closed meeting today by Publisher Roger Oglesby. Present at the meeting was Hearst Newspaper President Steve Swartz, who told the newsroom that Hearst Corp. is starting a 60-day process to find a buyer. If a buyer is not found, possible options include creating an all-digital operation with a greatly reduced staff, or closing its operations entirely.

In no case will Hearst continue to publish the P-I in printed form, Swartz said.

Regardless, he said, if no buyer is found, the P-I as a newspaper will not publish after the two months is up.

The joint operating agreement that the Post-Intelligencer performs in conjunction with the Seattle Times requires a minimum of thirty days for Hearst to find a buyer before they shut it down. Hearst has previously bought out JOA partners and then sold its own newspaper (The Examiner, the paper that W.R. Hearst parlayed into a empire) in San Francisco, and bought out the competition only to shutter its own property (The Light) in San Antonio.

This is NOT a newspaper company big on sentimentality for its brands.

In the wake of Ike last September, the Beaumont Enterprise gave up trying to publish its own paper:

The Beaumont Enterprise is eliminating its pressroom and mailroom operations and outsourcing its daily printing and packaging to the Houston Chronicle, a sister Hearst newspaper, Publisher John E. Newhouse II announced (September 29).

The move, effective immediately, was necessary because of deteriorating business conditions and the high cost of repairing or replacing the newspaper's 34-year-old press, which has been inoperable since Hurricane Ike, Newhouse said.

Twenty employees were affected by the shutdown of the platemaking, press and mailroom departments. Seventeen were laid off and received severance packages. Three were reassigned to new jobs. ...

The move is part of a newspaper industry trend toward consolidation and outsourcing in response to the high cost of replacing antiquated and worn-out equipment. In The Enterprise's case, that could be more than $30 million for a new printing facility, Newhouse said.

The Houston Chronicle, whose presses can accommodate the additional color preferred by advertisers and readers, has been printing some sections of the Sunday Enterprise since last year and all of the newspaper's weekly products since early this year.

The entire Enterprise has been printed in Houston since the day after Hurricane Ike struck Southeast Texas.

So if a newspaper doesn't print a paper, what is it exactly?

Junior Brown last night at the Mucky Duck

The Texas legend (well, Indiana or maybe Arizona) sawed on his guit-steel and drawled through Long Walk Back to San Antone, Highway Patrol, My Wife Thinks You're Dead and a solid handful of other classics. It might have been the best evening of entertainment for the year 2009 (but I hope it gets better from here on).

Real or not?

Is God real, or is he imaginary? It is one of the most important questions you can ask yourself.

If God is real and if God inspired the Bible, then we should worship God as the Bible demands. We should certainly post the Ten Commandments in our courthouses and shopping centers, put "In God We Trust" on the money and pray in our schools. We should focus our society on God and his infallible Word because our everlasting souls hang in the balance.

On the other hand, if God is imaginary, then religion is a complete illusion. Christianity, Judaism and Islam are pointless. Belief in God is nothing but a silly superstition, and this superstition leads a significant portion of the population to be delusional.

But how can we decide, conclusively, whether God is real or imaginary?

Don't click and read on unless you want your thoughts really, really provoked.

As if we needed any more

Additional evidence that Texas attorney general Greg Abbott is simply the very worst of a wretched lot in Austin. Emphasis is mine, first person voice is Rick Casey's:

Five years ago I asked readers to feel sorry for Assistant Attorney General Gena Bunn.

Now I'm asking you to feel sorry for Assistant Attorney General Katherine Hayes.

It was Bunn's job, I wrote, to go "with a straight face" before the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of death row inmate Delma Banks "and argue that the state of Texas should be able to suborn perjury and hide evidence with impunity in its quest to get the death penalty."

She had to admit that prosecutors had stood silent while two key witnesses lied under oath during Banks' two-day trial in 1980 for the murder of a 16-year-old co-worker.

She argued that defense attorneys had waited too long to raise the issue, even though the delay was caused by the prosecutors' cover-up of the evidence.

The justices were not receptive.

"Wasn't it the obligation of the prosecution, having deceived the jury and the court, to come clean?" asked Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

"So the prosecution can lie and conceal, and the defense still has the burden to discover the evidence?" challenged Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.

The arguments advanced by Bunn had worked at the prosecution-oriented U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, but Bunn found no sympathy at the Supreme Court. It took that body — including archconservatives Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — just 10 weeks to issue a stinging slap to the state of Texas and to the 5th Circuit.

In the unanimous opinion, Ginsburg wrote that it was "appropriate for Banks to assume that his prosecutors would not stoop to improper litigation conduct to advance prospects for getting a conviction."

The court sent the case back down, ordering a full examination of the facts to determine whether Banks should get a new trial. It also overturned the death sentence. (Scalia joined Thomas in dissenting from this portion, though Thomas called it a "close call.")

After examining the evidence and hearing arguments from both sides, U.S. District Judge David Folsom of Texarkana ruled that Banks must be either retried or freed.

He noted that Charles Cook was a key witness at the trial, being the only witness to testify that Banks had said he killed the victim and the only one to provide a motive.

And, wrote Folsom, "Cook's testimony on these issues was uncorroborated."

It is undisputed that on the stand Cook said three times he had not talked to anyone before giving his testimony. For 16 years, prosecutors hid proof that Cook was lying.

Only in 1996, under a federal court order, did they turn over a 38-page transcript of a coaching session Cook received just days before he testified. Present were a prosecutor, a DA's investigator and the deputy who led the murder investigation.

Quoting the transcript, Folsom writes: "Cook's misrepresentation at trial — claiming that he had not been coached — is particularly significant in light of how extensively Cook was coached."

For example, a number of things Cook said during that session differed from the statements he had given originally, the kinds of inconsistencies defense attorneys thrive on.

What's more, Cook admitted on the stand he had been convicted of felony assault but "forgot" who the victim was.

Yet during the coaching session a few days earlier he had identified her as a schoolteacher. The AG's office argued that Cook thought the defense attorney was asking for a name, but Folsom wrote that the "name is clearly not what the defense was seeking."

And a handwritten note by one of Cook's handlers on the coaching session transcript next to the mention of the schoolteacher said, "do not say."

Prosecutors didn't want the jurors knowing their star witness beat up schoolteachers.

(Yesterday) Assistant Attorney General Hayes (appeared) in New Orleans and, based on a technicality, ask the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn Folsom.

A major argument amounts to raising a technicality. The state argues that Banks' attorneys didn't give proper notice that they were using the coaching transcript in their case.

Having hidden the damning transcript for 16 years, prosecutors are saying defense attorneys aren't playing fair.

Both a federal magistrate and Judge Folsom ruled that proper notice was given when Banks' attorneys, without objection from the state, introduced the transcript at an earlier hearing and asked witnesses numerous questions about it.

Hayes may get a favorable reception in New Orleans. It's the same three-judge panel that didn't see any problems years ago. But then this already outrageously long legal process will go back to the high court.

There's a better course. Shouldn't Attorney General Greg Abbott, whose job presumably bears some relationship to the pursuit of justice, be chastising prosecutors for breaking the law rather than defending them?

I certainly hope all of the Republicans who read and comment at Chron.com remember this when Abbott announces his intention to run for re-election (or lt. governor, or governor) in 2010 and beyond.