Let's leave it to one of the Greens' highest-ranking officers to deliver the news.
In a June 10 e-mail to other Green Party officials, state party treasurer David Wager said, “I was promised by a representative of Take Initiative America that the organization was not a corporation and that he would comply with all disclosure requests. Today I was informed that the organization is in fact a corporation and they will not disclose their donors. They claim that their collection of signatures and in-kind contribution was not political. I don’t agree. In my opinion, we have no choice but to refuse the signatures.”
President Obama removed Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal as commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan on Wednesday, moving quickly to restore the unity of his administration's war effort after the general and his top aides in biting remarks in an explosive magazine article.
Obama named Gen. David H. Petraeus, the former commander of U.S. forces in Iraq and currently the head of the U.S. Central Command, to replace McChrystal and urged the Senate to confirm him promptly.
But Obama reaffirmed in blunt terms the counterinsurgency strategy he ordered last year, and he said that "war is bigger than any one man or woman, whether a private, a general or a president."
This move actually makes slightly more sense, blunting conservative criticism by tapping their Iraq hero for the job. As Laurence Lewis posted:
Conservative critics of President Obama long have derided him as weak. Intellectual, reserved, unemotional. When the BP oil gusher exploded, they criticized him for not taking aggressive enough action. Despite otherwise being critics of federal government. And then when he took decisive action by shutting down deepwater drilling and forcing BP to set aside $20 billion as a beginning of their debt repayment, they criticized him for overreaching and being a thug.
With the removal of General Stanley McChrystal from command of Afghan military operations, you can be certain that we will hear more right wing criticism. No matter what the President does, the right will criticize him. But those like McChrystal and his supporters who might have thought the President was weak now have their answer. He's the Commander-in-Chief, in a government that has civilian rule over the military. There is a chain of command. He knows it, and they that dared flout it now know it.
Let the critics come. Who looks weak now?
And of course this change maintains continuity of command and the strategy in Afghanistan and all that blahblahblah. July 2011 remains the withdrawal start date, and frankly it can't come soon enough.
Now back to the Gulf oil catastrophe, the economy, the multiple reform legislation battles ...
With the Texas Democratic Party opening their state convention in Corpus Christi tomorrow, let's take a look at the introductory videos of the candidates for lieutenant governor, state Supreme Court, and railroad commissioner: Linda Chavez-Thompson, Bill Moody, and Jeff Weems.
Chavez-Thompson's life story is compelling, and offers the starkest contrast imaginable between the GOP and the Dems at the statewide level. From the TDP's candidate piece:
As a child, Linda Chavez-Thompson picked cotton to support her family and couldn’t afford to finish her education. Through years of hard work, Linda rose to national prominence as a leader for working families, and today, she is running for Lieutenant Governor to make sure every Texas child has the opportunities that weren’t available to her.
Linda Chavez-Thompson may be an underdog running against a millionaire, but unlike David Dewhurst and the Republicans, Linda knows we can’t afford to write off a generation of Texas children who must be prepared for good jobs in the new economy.
Just last year, David Dewhurst showed he was willing to write off thousands of Texans by applying a different standard to us than he applies to himself. During the debate on the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Dewhurst demanded that working families re-enroll for CHIP coverage every six months instead of annually, saying he doesn’t think people “have a lot of sympathy for someone that can’t fill out a two-page application every six months.” Yet when it came to his own business dealings, Dewhurst failed to file legal forms in a timely fashion six times -- forms required to conduct his business legally in Texas.
After twelve years in statewide office, David Dewhurst may think he is entitled to special treatment, but Texans have had their fill of hypocritical politicians who use their offices for career advancement while ignoring the everyday concerns of Texas families.
Moody collected more votes than any other Democrat in 2006, narrowly losing his contest against Republican Paul Green -- who has turned in a record of near-invisibility since. From Moody's TDP candidate piece:
Judge Bill Moody is running for Texas Supreme Court, Place 5. Judge Moody was one of our most successful statewide candidates in 2006, earning more votes than any other Democrat on the ballot. In the twenty-three years he has worked as a judge, he has tried over five hundred jury trials. Over his long and distinguished career, he has earned a reputation for hard work and a commitment to ensuring justice in Texas’ courts.
The same cannot be said for his opponent, Justice Paul Green. First elected to the Texas Supreme Court in 2004, Green’s absence from the opinion-making process is a perfect example for why we need fresh ideas and committed public servants on Texas’ highest court.
Of 144 rulings issued in fiscal year 2007, Justice Green issued an opinion in only four cases. That’s right -- Paul Green issued a ruling in less than 3% of cases in which the Texas Supreme Court took action, the fewest of any Justice on the Court. (Source: San Antonio Express-News)
Green is the symptom of a much larger problem. An analysis by Texas Watch in February 2008 showed that it took the Texas Supreme Court an average of 852 days to dispose of a case -- approximately 2.3 years. Even after oral arguments were finished, it would take the Justices on the Court over a year to write an opinion on the case they heard. (Source: Texas Watch) As Texas Watch argued in their report:
Cases in which a consumer has won at the lower appellate level comprise the majority of cases the Court accepts for review. By keeping these cases on hold for inordinate amounts of time, the Court makes it more likely that injured patients will go without recompense for lost wages and medical expenses, individuals will be forced to declare bankruptcy, and matters involving children are delayed.
The snail’s pace of Paul Green and the entirely Republican Texas Supreme Court is harmful to Texans looking to get their fair day in court. Yet while Green has shown little concern for swift justice, he has been expedient in charging Texas taxpayers for his travel expenses.
Over the course of three years, Justice Green filed for mileage reimbursements for 272 separate trips between Austin, where he lives in an Austin apartment, and San Antonio, his home town. The 272 trips totaled over $16,000 in travel expenses. (Source: The Houston Chronicle)
This November, Texans will have a chance to change the Texas Supreme Court. The contrast between Bill Moody’s extensive experience and Green’s slow-paced and controversial behavior on the bench could not be any clearer. Texans who believe hard work and fairness should be the hallmark of a Texas Supreme Court justice should support Moody this November.
Weems, like many of the other Democrats on the statewide slate, has experience that dwarfs his opponent's. You may recall that TeaBagger David Porter edged incumbent GOP Railroad Commissioner Victor Carillo in a bitter primary last spring where Carillo suggested that his Hispanic surname was a liability in the Republican party. From Weems' TDP candidate piece:
Jeff Weems brings a lifetime’s worth of firsthand experience to the Texas Railroad Commission. Republican candidate David Porter, on the other hand, is completely unqualified.
The Amarillo Globe-News called Jeff Weems’ credentials “superior.” [Source: Amarillo-Globe News, 4/11/10] Weems is an oil and gas attorney by trade, and has worked in the oil and gas industry since high school. He worked his way through college on the rigs and as a drilling mud representative. Jeff earned a degree from the University of Texas in Petroleum Land Management and worked as a landman, negotiating complex commercial transactions. Since earning his law degree from UT, he has spent 20 years as an energy lawyer. ...
Republican challenger David Porter, on the other hand, has no experience for the job. He told the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal that his qualifications include working as an accountant and owning property that happens to have pipelines on it. [Source: Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, 2/17/10]
But even worse than his inexperience is that Porter has seemingly no understanding of the responsibilities of the Commission he is trying to lead -- and resorts to irrelevant partisan rhetoric to distract from both his inexperience and lack of knowledge. He thinks global warming is a myth. [Source: Porter’s Editorial Endorsement Interview with the Dallas Morning News 2/10] His disturbing misunderstanding of the role of Railroad Commissioner is evident from his “Why I am Running” statement on his website:
“The Obama administration cap and trade energy tax, the proposed changes in tax law such as doing away with percentage depletion…are a de facto declaration of economic war by the current administration on the Texas oil and gas industry.” [Porter campaign website]
Porter either doesn’t know, or doesn’t care, that the Texas Railroad Commission does not draft, enforce or otherwise deal with federal cap and trade legislation or tax law.
Porter’s campaign has focused on “anti-Washington, D.C., anti-Obama rhetoric” because he is frighteningly inexperienced and has nothing to run on but empty slogans. As someone who thinks climate change is not real, Porter is unfit to effectively take care of our state’s vast energy resources. Capitol Inside described Porter as “a candidate who had almost no money and even less name identification for a race that he’d entered 15 minutes before the filing deadline simply because no other challenger had signed up to run for the post.” [Capitol Inside, 4/16/10]
Texans deserve a Railroad Commissioner who understands the job, and Jeff Weems delivers a lifetime of experience.
The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan has been summoned to Washington to explain derogatory comments about President Barack Obama and his colleagues, administration officials said Tuesday.
Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who publicly apologized Tuesday for using "poor judgment" in an interview in Rolling Stone magazine (.pdf), has been ordered to attend the monthly White House meeting on Afghanistan and Pakistan in person Wednesday rather than over a secure video teleconference, according to officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. He'll be expected to explain his comments to Obama and top Pentagon officials, these officials said.
Obama has the authority to fire McChrystal. His predecessor, Gen. David McKiernan, was sacked on grounds that the military needed "new thinking and new approaches" in Afghanistan.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen has told McChrystal of his "deep disappointment" over the article, a spokesman said.
Though McChrystal has not, as far as we know (isn't that phrase simply the most devastating, backhanded insinuation, by the way?), disobeyed a direct order -- that is both the military's as well as the corporate definition of 'insubordination' -- some punishment more severe than harsh language seems in order.
Should he just be chastised? Or relieved of command? Busted back to colonel? Placed before a firing squad? (That would be my preference, based only on past history.)
Are we in Afghanistan at this point so that we can mine their mineral deposits? Then let the corporations hire the mercenaries to fight there.
Update: Barbara Morrill notes that the Uniform Code of Military Justice defines insubordination as including "contemptuous words". There's also a poll at that link that currently indicates 80% of more than 7,000 respondents think McChrystal should be cashiered (I voted 'unsure').
Barbara has kept the heat on the inept, incompetent incumbent: attorney general Greg Abbott, who needs no introduction to regular readers here. This week she has challenged him to pursue litigation against Wall Street's tycoons, who perpetuated the fraud our economy still reels from. From her Kos diary:
Wall Street firms have harmed Texas and all of America. I've proposed a State Attorney General lawsuit and to work at no fee to help solve the problem.
Our people are unemployed. Our home values have plummeted. And, our state governments are making savage cuts to our schools, our kids' healthcare and more.
These facts give states, including Texas, the right to sue Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and other firms for wrongdoing.
It's time for state Attorneys General to file these law suits.
I provided Texas Attorney General Abbott the $18 billion lawsuit which should be filed on an urgent basis, ahead of the approaching deadline. The right to sue for negligence will likely expire in September 2010 (due to a 2 year legal "Limitation" period in Texas) so time is of the essence. I offered Attorney General Abbott the Complaint for the lawsuit and offered my legal services at no fee to work on the case. The Legal Complaint and Legal Memo are available at SueWallStreet.com explaining states suffering the harm have the right to go after the wrongdoers.
South Carolina's unexpected Democratic nominee for the US Senate, mystery man Alvin Greene, says he wants to play golf with Barack Obama. But in Texas, another surprise Democratic primary winner, congressional nominee Kesha Rogers, wants to impeach the President. So while South Carolina party officials are still unsure of what to do about Greene's success at the ballot box, Texas Democrats have no such reservations — they wasted little time in casting Rogers into exile and offering no support or recognition of her campaign to win what once was Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay's old seat.
Several of my blog hermanos y hermanas cast aspersions on Rogers' nomination, you may recall.
Unlike South Carolina's Greene, Rogers ran a high profile campaign, staking out a corner on a major intersection in the district to appear almost daily with a large sign: "Save NASA. Impeach Obama." She garnered 7,467 votes, 53% of the vote, in a three way race that included a local information systems analyst Doug Blatt, who gained endorsements from local Democratic clubs and labor groups, and Freddie John Weider Jr., a preacher and onetime Libertarian candidate; Blatt came in second with 28% of the vote and Weider won 20%. "The people of the 22nd district voted for me," she said. "They recognized the party is not acting in the interests of the people."
Meanwhile, the state party has adopted a resolution denying any party support for Rogers, citing the alleged racist and discriminatory views of the LaRouche movement — allegations that Rogers, who is African-American, firmly rejects. District 22 has also been stricken from the party's official online list of congressional races. ...
One theory, according to a Democratic Party insider, is Rogers benefitted from her name being in the top position on the Fort Bend County ballot, where African-American Democratic interest was high in two local races. But Rogers rejects that notion. "I went to senior citizens centers. I was knocking on doors everywhere — everyone knew my positions, " she told TIME. "I don't think the Democratic Party leadership is getting it. The people continue to see more and more economic devastation and they don't see any real leadership." And for now, the party leadership will pretend that it can't see Rogers.
Lastly, Open Source Dem weighs in with this opinion:
Both the GOP and even the LaRouche organization have “dirty tricks machines”, parodies actually of psychological warfare and disinformation operations by military and military intelligence organizations.
The GOP thinks they are waging “politics as war” (Gingrich); the LaRouche outfit is waging “permanent revolution” (Trotsky). It is not funny: Real people get hurt and the media returns are huge from relatively little outlay of funds.
Frankly, I am tired of Democrats whining about this.
These folks have 'declared war' but cringing liberals are just running around in circles wringing their hands and moaning “won’t anybody think about the children!” The Democratic Party establishment is supporting the candidacy of LaRouche associate Kesha Rogers and remains “inclusive” of the LaRouche movement. Anything else is, evidently, an challenge to the legal imagination and vanity of Boyd Richie and Gerry Birnberg. (ed. note: though the Senate District Executive Committee of the Texas Democratic Party -- led by Richie -- has passed a resolution denying support to Rogers, Harris County Chair Birnberg favors her candidacy, as noted here.)
The Democratic Party establishment is also trying to deny ballot access to the Green Party based on a campaign finance -- or ethical -- argument against the Green Party, not the GOP operatives nor the source of funding for this “op”.
There is no doubt in my mind that the GOP wants (a) to suppress the latent Democratic majority in Texas, (b) to sow dissention among Democrats, and (c) to shave votes from Bill White. But they can probably “comply” with “ethics” laws as artfully as Matt Angle and the Democratic Party.
So is Andy Taylor smarter than Buck Wood or Chad Dunn? Probably not, but who cares? Is any of this gamesmanship really politics or actually strategic?
No! The GOP is promoting the Green Party and the TDP is publicizing it. Who is stupider? It is a close call.
The main threat the Green Party poses is to clerk candidates in Bexar and Harris counties. But the Hart InterCivic company is not worried about that, so the party establishment in Austin is not either. They are trying to piggyback on and justify themselves to Bill White’s campaign. Otherwise they are doing whatever Matt Angle pays them to.
One could objectively, if amorally, admire a pimp-consultant like Angle if he was actually smart or proficient. But Wallenstein he isn’t. Tilly, maybe.
Cringing, gullible liberals and nostalgic, vindictive conservatives -- plus vain, underemployed lawyers -- do not for a strong, strategic, or victorious party make.
They cannot even whip a senile Trotskyite or a few GOP frat-boys playing “covert operator”.
