Congratulations Mittens!

You couldn't have done it without us.

Now your Democratic constituents expect you to speak out against Mike Huckaboob's ridiculous assertion that we change the Constitution into the Bible.

John Edwards, Nevada, and $7 million this Friday

First, it's a three-way tie in Nevada:

A new poll by the Reno Gazette-Journal shows a neck-and-neck three-way race among Democrats for Saturday's (January 19) caucus.


Barack Obama: 32 percent
Hillary Clinton: 30 percent
John Edwards: 27 percent

The poll was conducted Jan. 11 to Jan. 13 , with samples of 500 likely Democratic caucus-goers statewide by Maryland-based Research 2000. The margin of error is 4.5 percent.

A win in Nevada would be part of the Edwards re-emergence (I'd like to have been able to use "surge", but you know why I can't). The action plan is to break Ron Paul's online fund-raising record this Friday, the day before Nevada votes:

What I want to know is this: If Paul can do it, why can't Edwards? Edwards has far more support than Paul and he ought to be able to mobilize his supporters to attempt to set a new fund raising record. I don't know if Edwards has anything like this in mind but there is no reason his supporters can't embark on this on their own.

Care to help out?

I see we've touched a nerve

My SDEC account apparently upset one of my blog hermanos:

The blog coverage from the January State Democratic Executive Committee (SDEC) meeting this past weekend is weak. We have only heard from David Van Os and Open Source Dem about their disappointment over the failure of John Courage’s proposal to place language on the March primary ballot statewide, blaming the “First Spear Centurion” for inaction on a resolution that was introduced into the wrong committee. Courage’s proposed referendum is a great idea, and it is a terrible disappointment that the motion was brought to the wrong committee.

First of all thanks for the linky love, dembones. That might be a first (excepting our mutual Roundups and Wrangles).

But to his objection: it's always useful to understand why someone cries when the status quo is challenged. I don't know if he has a dog in this hunt or whether -- in the admonishment "quit bitching and get to work" -- he's only interested in playing schoolmarm. But it's obvious in his archives that paying attention to what the SDEC is up to isn't high on the posting priority.

Which is certainly fine with me; they've done excellent research on the T Don Hutto scandal and the toll road concerns and have been the leader in Williamson County reporting for quite some time.

But if he didn't like that last one, he sure isn't going to like this one, either:

This time the Chairman -- a combination of Caligula's Horse and Ceasar's Wife -- "referred" the motion to the Monsignor Ken MOLBERG legalism committee. This is one of two committees, the other is "Rulesmanship", where anything progressive or simply innovative goes to die. It got tabled there because Monsignor MOLBERG made it clear enough that "the Crown" (who knows who that is actually, certainly it is not the elected State Chairman, a spokesmodel, not a principal) did not want it on the ballot.

But then at the end every one of the Palace Guard on that committee did not just table it, they refused even a minority report. Actually, you cannot be on the so-called Nominations/Legal Committee without being a member of the Palace Guard. It is the party's main organ of self-perpetuation. In fact Monsignor MOLBERG gave John Courage a lot of time to make either a substantive or procedural case. John, a school teacher, was high on substance but zero on process.

Monsignor MOLBERG specializes in long drawn-out tedium. Not torture actually, but with the same result.

(When John brought his motion up again to the full SDEC it was in his usual well-intended but pitifully illiterate and narcissistic parliamentary style. Here's a clue, John: it is not just or even mostly about you or Zada.)

Then it got really funny, because the Chairman did not really know what to do either, then mumbled something about "out of order" and fled the podium, relying on a Palace Guard scrum, phalanx of pseudo-parliamentarians, and more of the mumbo-jumbo squad to cover his ass and come up with a bizarre motion to "sustain the chair".

That's the Tom Craddick analogy, for anyone who's been paying close attention. Continuing:

As usual, the actual Vice Chair (a minority, not a lawyer) did not vice chair. The elected chair, bypassing her, threw the hot potato to House Slave, Dennis Speight.

This is the Democratic Party, folks: our poor, pitiful minorities are pandered to relentlessly and used as decoration "inclusively". But the party is actually run by white male lawyers and really smart, but kinda mean, old women -- legal secretaries or what the Pentagon calls "gray ladies".

Finally the coup de grace was delivered in a moment truly reminiscent of the Craddick House: the Vestal Virgin of Rules marched in and delivered a "ruling" in support of the Chair, whatever it was he did exactly. Actually in the Texas House, some member of the SDEC, as surrogate for the chair, would have read the ruling/opinion of the parliamentarian. Parliamentary law is about self-government, not clerical intimidation and usurpation.

Let's wrap it up by coming 'round to echo dembones' point about party finance:

Finally there is the matter of party/campaign finance. This party has no actual party finance. It is "barefoot and pregnant" -- funded, in part, by the GOP Secretary of State in return for being subservient and fawning, especially in dealings with Hart InterCivic.

And it is funded by corporations, unions, PACs, and the DNC on conditions that it hire certain people, set aside seats on the SDEC and DNC for certain individuals, procure this or that for particular vendors, match corporate funds with campaign contributions, and apply the campaign contributions, or not, to races and consultants the corporate interests and PACs dictate.

Sorry, we do not need a "New Jesus" or even a new state chair.

We need an entire SDEC with a disciplined and proficient majority of Democrats who can build "a real party", not a ladies auxiliary for an Austin political establishment that is and has been washed up, utterly unequal to the challenges we face or opportunities we have.

Well, maybe we'll just have to settle for a new Chair.

We endorse

From the TPA press release yesterday:

Rick Noriega, United States Senate. On March 4, Texas Democrats have a clear choice for their nominee for U.S. Senate: Rick Noriega. Noriega has the experience necessary to defeat Bush lapdog John Cornyn in the fall. Faced with three token primary opponents, only one of whom is running what could be considered a legitimate campaign. Noriega is the clear choice not because he is right on important issues such as the war and CHIP, but because he is a true progressive with a proven record of accomplishment for the people of Texas.

Joe Jaworski, State Senate, District 11. Joe Jaworski (D-Galveston), a former Galveston City councilman, has taken a very strong stance on environmental issues, especially important in SD-11 and statewide. Jaworski faces token primary opposition and will likely face Sen. Mike Jackson (R-LaPorte) in the 2008 general election. Jackson has one of the worst environmental records of any legislator in the entire Texas Legislature and has failed for several sessions to make any meaningful legislative headway on issues important to his constituents.

Rep. Garnet Coleman, Texas House, District 147. Coleman (D-Houston) is, of course, one of the leading progressives in the Texas House, and has been at the forefront of important issues including the Children’s Health Insurance Program, women's reproductive freedom, and gay rights. A member of the House leadership, re-electing Coleman is key to ensuring that the 81st session of the Texas Legislature has a strong liberal voice. Coleman faces a marginal primary opponent whose ballot status has been denied.

Rep. Jessica Farrar, Texas House, District 148. Farrar (D-Houston) is another strong progressive voice in the Capitol. She was a leader in the 80th Legislature on issues including the HPV vaccine, stem cell research, and against Rick Perry’s arrogant Homeland Security power-grab. Farrar is one of a handful of Democrats who voted against Speaker Tom Craddick in 2005 and as a result was relegated to the Agriculture Committee (an insult for a veteran legislator in an urban district). She faces in the primary a former staffer from her office who is believed to be supported by anti-progressive forces in Austin. Farrar is one of our progressive stars and Texans across the state need her back in 2009.

Rep. Paul Moreno, Texas House, District 77. Moreno (D-El Paso) is the dean of the House and one its strongest advocates on civil rights issues. A seasoned veteran of many progressive struggles, Moreno faces an unknown opponent with no experience in government. Moreno deserves re-election, and Texas needs his continued leadership on civil rights and Democratic issues in the Texas Legislature.

Armando Walle, Texas House, District 140. Walle is seeking to defeat Rep. Kevin Bailey (D-Houston) in the Democratic primary, who has been ineffective for his district on progressive issues. Unseating him is a necessary step toward picking a new Speaker. Walle has worked for Congressional members Sheila Jackson Lee and Gene Green, and, we believe, will be a better voice for HD-140 than Bailey.

Brian Thompson, Texas House, District 46. Thompson also squares off in the primary against Rep. Dawnna Dukes (D-Austin), who has cast a number of votes against the interest of her constituents. A changing of the guard here is yet another step toward electing a new Speaker in 2009. Thompson, an attorney, has strong ties to the community and will be a much needed progressive voice in this Austin district.

To view the 2008 TexRoots slate, or to make an online contribution, please visit the ActBlue TexRoots page.

A report from this weekend's SDEC Austin conclave

... from Open Source Dem. He provides as always a biting yet cogent view:

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

As usual, the SDEC meeting was … dysfunctional and dismaying for Democratic candidates and supporters -- for any citizen or patriot who might have witnessed it.

Please forgive me for not getting as depressed at this as some, but my son is dealing with the problem of self-government in northeast Baghdad. Now that is much worse. But don’t pity me, or him. He is young, fit and welcomes the challenge. He may be foolhardy but he is also learning political cunning and small-unit leadership skills.

It is winter here now, but republican democracy can blossom in Texas overnight. That is not true in most of the world, where our armed forces are being squandered by GOP idiots and Democratic cowards.

No business of consequence was conducted publicly in Austin Saturday. No big surprise.

The good news is that Lloyd CRISS got a precedent-breaking resolution past the Palace Guard. It is not an silly plea but a directive from the SDEC to its staff to mount a statewide GOTV campaign. That is not what the DLC/DCCC want. It is what they should have done in 2006. But it is also a precedent in demonstrating both the power and responsibility of the SDEC.

Otherwise, underneath the time-wasting and empty ritual, the Praetorians killed everything and began hinting at a new quest to kill off various “caucuses” that threaten professional control of the party. An exciting new concept was unveiled: not adopting, amending, ignoring or enforcing rules -- not even the usual ignorance, especially of Robert’s Rules -- now Rules Committee First Spear Centurion Bill Brannon has introduced the concept of “trumping” the rules with a mish-mash of parliamentary malarkey. This is less the usual mumbo jumbo than outright humiliation and intimidation of SDEC members.

The matter of applying for recognition by and membership on an Advisory Committee established by party rules will be difficult to conclude inasmuch as there appears to be a regular and an ad hoc committee each with the same name and “trumping” the rules. That is absurd, but what is new about that?

Here are my and David VAN OS’ comments at Texas Kaos.

To revisit the complaint, while party insiders claim to be “winning elections”, they actually minimized party performance in the 2006 Blue Wave -- essentially opting out of the DNC fifty-state strategy and adhering strictly to the DLC/DCCC “targeted campaign” effort. The TDP set new $/vote consultant-subsidy records and delivered two new “Bush Dogs” (Nick Lampson and Ciro Rodriguez) committed to prolonging the war in Iraq and extending it to Iran.

The TDP is also collaborating with TEAM implementation. That is the only tool we have for turning out new and unlikely voters. But that is not what consultants do: they are only interested in commissions from “likely voter” media and the Voter Activation Network is the only tool they have. It substitutes for direct TEAM access. So the TDP – solidly aligned behind the DLC/DCCC and governed by a remarkably unsuccessful gaggle of pimp-consultants -- has helped to reverse the “New Direction” promised by Nancy PELOSI and articulated spectacularly by Jim WEBB.

Thanks to a state party establishment rented out to the Texas Trust, Rahm EMANUEL is effectively Speaker of the House and Joe LIEBERMAN is actually the Senate Majority Leader. Matt ANGLE is effectively State Chair(man) and Martin FROST is Cardinal-Protector of the PACs. Super-rich donors -- out of state or, in the case of property-managers and concession-tenders, foreign -- have now created a Congressional majority that mimics the SDEC: it is less popular than even George W. BUSH and a drag on all Democratic campaigns. But the TDP is going all out (a) to maintain that death grip on this party and (b) to tie up and deliver a delegation of mind hostages -- drones, if you prefer -- to the national convention.

In 2008 the party elite are, again, protecting Craddick Democrats, leaving key GOP seats uncontested and remaining indifferent to, if not scared of, the populist uprising evident all across the country. They are using “McGovern Rules” (hard quotas) and sheer deception -- “rulesmanship” -- to hide control of the party by a handful of white male lawyers operating behind a velvet curtain of “inclusiveness”.

The simple fact of the matter is that both the Democratic and GOP party establishments would rather lose elections than lose control of their respective parties.

The sort of populist upwelling of political participation we now see is infrequent -- absent for intervals of 20-40 years -- as most voters pursue lives far removed from the deal culture of elite-controlled, collaborative parties. But, when populism is manifest, look out: populism is culturally driven, interest-constrained, and constitutionally operational. When the people -- in droves, as seen in Iowa and New Hampshire -- return to politics it is out of dire concern, expressed as either hope or anger but focused on what they consider to be their heritage, birthright, and posterity and not the petty, often corrupt, obsessions of political elitists.

Still, the dynamic is different within each party. Today’s GOP coalition of Trotskyites (neoconservatives), Darbyites (religious right), and Thatcherites (tax shifters) is self-destructing and radiating hate-filled absurdity, even as it collapses into a, well, “white hole”. But don’t smugly cheer: the center of the Republican Party today –- the federal, state, and local officials, not to mention a slew of Cold War paramilitary organs -- is now pumped up with 'War on Terror' and Homeland Security funds. These include not a few of the hard men -- absent Generals Rove and DeLay -- who think of politics as war itself, still well-trained and -funded to “do whatever it takes” to hold power, not least to set aside what is left of the Constitution. Whatever polls or for that matter our clap-trap elections say, this hard core of the GOP will not relinquish control gently.

The latent majority of Democrats -- a huge majority in Texas –- are in fact intensely patriotic, more frustrated than angry, filled with hope and not hate, and constructive, patient, and considerate; not destructive, desperate, or violent. Yes, we are confused by and annoyed with our party establishment. Yes, we need to get smart, replace them quickly, and move on to competitive rather than collaborative politics. That takes a real party; not plush offices in Austin, not an official entourage of young, pretty personal assistants, not kickbacks of free hospitality suites and limousines at state and national conventions run as over-priced “beauty pageants”, not a two-bit “likely-voter” campaign tool, scaled for individual House races, where a statewide get-out-the-vote program should be.

Once again the state party establishment is spending capital and mortgaging the future in a bid to boost its individual members up the patronage chain into state and federal appointed positions. They talk about winning elections, but all they are doing is currying favor with lobbies and aggrandizing themselves personally. Theirs is an exit strategy from politics that is, simply, more competitive than collaborative. The state party establishment is not really prepared or fit for competition.

What this calls for is a progressive populist caucus that has a plan and resources to take over the state convention, to inform delegates, to manage their time competently, to exercise plenary power of the state party, to exploit historic developments well underway, and to restore republican democracy to a fine party.

Our party is the first republican party in North American, the oldest democratic party in the world, but a decrepit and nearly inconsequential shell of its former self in Austin.

Sad as that is, parties are very lightweight institutions. All the Presidential candidates are talking change -- the easiest change of all being the discarding of a state party establishment of sycophants, toads, and fools. Actually, it is a good thing to be on the fringe of a party so badly run as ours in this state.

It makes the housecleaning more obvious and vital, for one thing.

The Weekly Wrangle

Once again the TPA's finest postings from the past seven days are collected (thanks to Vince at Capitol Annex).

Muse found the potties at the Harris County D.A.’s office -- thereby making her qualified to be District Attorney (according to Kelly Siegler). "Muse 2012: Qualified and Potty Location Trained."

Hide the silver! Off the Kuff says Tom DeLay is back in town.

CouldBeTrue at South Texas Chisme notes that Kay 'Bye Bye' Bailey Hutchison is getting grief from the knuckle-draggers in her own party for the recently passed border fence amendment. Apparently even a little bit of sanity must be stamped out by the Republican base.

Early voting, Hal at Half Empty says, may just be something ALL Democrats need to consider in order to avoid confusion at the polls when locations at schools are moved (due to TAKS schedules) this coming March.

The FairTax (Mike Huckabee's 30% national sales tax scheme), Texans for (Tort) Reform, and Houstonians for (Ir)Responsible Growth all have one billionaire in common: Leo Linbeck Jr. PDiddie at Brains and Eggs provides the 411 on Linbeck's various conservative-populist-activist shell companies.

WCNews at Eye On Williamson points to an inane AAS editorial on the AG's health care gambit.

Harry Balczak at McBlogger found an interesting take on the candidates in the presidential election.

Jaye at Winding Road notes that these are the times that try Democratic souls.

Gary at Easter Lemming Liberal News wants Obama or Clinton to pay the $2,000 and establish a precedent of auditing and hand-counting electronic ballots. The complete series of the New Hampshire results and the reasons why it may be a good idea to audit is here.

Vince at Capitol Annex notes that Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott is testing the waters for his 2010 run for lieutenant governor with his asinine child insurance program.

BossKitty at BlueBloggin reviews the history Of US-backed dictators - redux.

Stace at DosCentavos bids a fond farewell to the history-making candidacy of Bill Richardson and shares his thoughts and feelings on supporting the first Latino presidential candidate.

John Coby at Bay Area Houston wonders why state representative John Davis was a no-show in the local paper's write-up concerning the race for HD-129.

More Sunday Funnies (non-primary edition)

Sunday Funnies (primary edition)

Borris Miles disappoints me, again

I didn't particularly like it when he played art censor, and I don't think too highly of his gunslinger mentality, but both incidents were surprisingly quite popular with the majority of his constituency.

But this -- if the police report is accurate, if these accusations are not the politically motivated exaggerations of a group of people associated with former HD-146 Rep. Al Edwards -- is almost too much:

The Harris County District Attorney's Office is investigating a complaint that state Rep. Borris Miles, D-Houston, made threats and brandished a gun at a holiday party last month.

According to witnesses, Miles entered a St. Regis Hotel ballroom uninvited, confronting guests, displaying a pistol and forcibly kissing another man's wife.

There's more, and it gets worse for Miles. He's going to have to do some damage control, if there's any that can be done.

I have blogged extensively about Miles, my support of him as a former precinct chair in his district, attending his swearing-in ceremony in Austin, and the ridiculousness of his predecessor, confirmed Craddick acolyte Edwards. Remember one of the things he's famous for, the too-sexy high school cheerleaders in the state? Jon Stewart is here to remind you:



There will be more of this story to be told and re-told between now and March 4th, when Democratic voters will determine which of the two men gets to represent the 146th in Austin (the district is about 90% blue, so it's all about the primary). For now, and provided there isn't further embarrassment to be endured from Miles, I believe he's still the right choice for the Texas House.

But it's getting a little shaky for me, and certainly many others.

John Edwards and the people he scares

Ask corporate lobbyists which presidential contender is most feared by their clients and the answer is almost always the same -- Democrat John Edwards. ...

One business lobbyist, who asked not to be named, said Edwards "has gone to this angry populist, anti-business rhetoric that borders on class warfare ... He focuses dislike of special interests, which is out there, on business." Another lobbyist said an Edwards presidency would be "a disaster" for his well-heeled industrialist clients. ...

"My sense is that Obama would govern as a reasonably pragmatic Democrat ... I think Hillary is approachable. She knows where a lot of her funding has come from, to be blunt," said Greg Valliere, chief political strategist at Stanford Group Co., a market and policy analysis group.

But Edwards, Valliere said, is seen as "an anti-business populist" and "a trade protectionist who is quite unabashed about raising taxes."

"I think his regulatory policies, as well as his tax policies, would be viewed as a threat to business," he said.

He instigates fear and loathing in the DLC as well:

As would be expected, the two gentlemen from the Democratic Leadership Council on a conference call today told reporters they’re very confident in their party’s chances of reclaiming the White House, they’re happy that substantive issues are being discussed…

And then Al From, the D.L.C. founder, said he was “very happy about the two candidates” Americans are considering.

Only two candidates?

Our ears perked up as we listened on.

“This is a really hard choice, really, for Democratic voters because they like both candidates,” said Mr. From. “For me, I don’t see that going to be a problem. I think in the end, Senator Obama’s appeal that he’s made very firmly and directly to independent voters, and Senator Clinton’s appeal to the forgotten middle class are going to add up to a very smashing Democratic majority in the fall.”

“This is not uncommon in primaries to see this kind of passionate support for one’s candidate,” added Harold Ford Jr., the D.L.C. chairman and a former Tennessee congressman.

Well, O.K. But what about John Edwards? He beat Mrs. Clinton in Iowa, as one reporter pointed out, but Mr. From still doesn’t think Mr. Edwards is viable.

I’m not going to speculate where the Edwards people go because I don’t know, to be honest with you. I think Edwards has run a hard, tough campaign. It’s not a, you know, he doesn’t take the tack that necessarily I agree with. What we’ve seen so far in this campaign is optimism. …

I think what you’re saying is that this is moving into a two-person race and that people in the race have been optimistic and hopeful, and I think that bodes well for the party because in the end, as long as I’ve been in politics — and I’m a lot older than 37 — the optimism always beats pessimism.

Dan Balz of the Washington Post says that "Edwards has offended many Democrats with his candidacy". Like whom? Lawrence O'Donnell says he is a loser and maybe even both a sexist and racist because he would "deny Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton the one-on-one contest they deserve."

Now I would expect rabid dogs like the US Chamber of Commerce to come out against him -- hell, they even hate Huckabee, for God's sake -- but I would also like to know which Democrats Balz is referring to. Because if any of them have the stones to identify themselves, it should be pointed out that they aren't actually members of the Democratic Party.

They may be Democrats but they're not Democratic.

I was greatly disappointed that Iowa -- and then New Hampshire -- did not give Edwards the boost he needed. While he is now a long-shot for the nomination, I welcome his determination to stay in this race. In the wake of the Granite State's surprising result, I began to notice on the various Democratic fora I visit that many Obama supporters appeared frustrated that Edwards had not dropped out and endorsed their candidate. They believe he is splitting the anti-Hillary vote.

I think everyone should be happy that Edwards would, as he has signaled, campaign through to the convention even though the others are currently favored to win the nomination. Once Edwards does, sadly yet eventually for this blogger, withdraw -- and be that immediately after February 5, or sooner, or later -- I agree with the Obama camp that a vast majority of his support moves to the senator from Illinois and not to Mrs. Clinton. It could well be enough support for her opponent so as to deny her the nomination -- from any moment well before, to shortly after -- the roll call of the first ballot in Denver this summer.

Or to deny her the nomination entirely, of course.

Thus Clinton supporters calling for Edwards to end his campaign ought to be able to better demonstrate that Clintonian savvy for triangulation.

John Edwards, like David Van Os, is precisely the kind of Democratic politician this country needs to elect more of. Edwards -- like Van Os did in his 2006 race for Texas Attorney General -- is talking about the issues in a way that Clinton and Obama never have (and likely never will). In the debates, his campaign rallies, in his television advertisements, he calls attention to problems that the corporate media all too often filter out. His rhetoric about rescuing the middle class, and those below, ought to be terrifying to the entrenched elites in corporate America and the Democrats in the Democratic Party. John Edwards in the White House threatens business as usual, right to its foundations.

Obama and Clinton, despite all the "change" rhetoric, have not shown themselves to be committed to a progressive agenda. Clinton, in my now-updated opinion, is beatable in a general election if McCain is the nominee. And even if she wins, it will be a narrower victory than any other Democratic nominee could achieve, and probably without even a slim majority in the Senate or House or both. And we would be back to all the things that destroyed the Democratic party in the 90's: triangulation and center-right policies masquerading as liberal positions. The return of the vast right-wing conspiracy machine with a vengeance. Endless media stories about Clintonian "scandals" regardless of the merit. The snarling mug of James Carville on television every night. The DLC and its own K Street strategy, triumphant.

And obviously we will see little if any gain for progressive positions. Universal health care? Dead on arrival. She doesn't make that mistake twice. Maybe a plan that allows health insurance companies and Big Pharma to suck up even more money than they do now. Iraq? A delayed or "deferred" withdrawal, leaving thousands of American soldiers stuck in a quagmire of neoconservative and neoliberal warhawk fantasies. A continued push by AIPAC and conservative Israeli politicians to involve America in a war against Iran. The continued downgrading of environmental issues, especially lacking a response to global warming that promises any hope of real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

And to be honest, despite all the happy talk from Obama about being the candidate of hope and change, I don't know that an Obama presidency would be a whole lot different, with the possible exception of Iraq. He may secretly be a progressive wrapped in moderate/centrist/bipartisan rhetoric, but I'm not convinced that he would engage in promoting policies that would radically alter the status quo. His speeches have actually referenced Republican talking points on Social Security, for Chrissakes. He is tied to as many big money corporate interests as Clinton, and nothing I've seen from him so far in his senatorial career leads me to believe he would cross those special interests if push came to shove. I hope I would be wrong about that, but that's all it is -- hope.

Which leaves us in a place only the punditocracy could love: endless discussions of the "horse race" aspect of the campaign, with little if any substantive discussion of issues and policy differences between the candidates of either party. And the promise of a future only slightly less bleak than the Bush years.

In short, business as usual.

So that's why I still support John Edwards, and hope that he forces a brokered Democratic convention this summer.

Democrats for Romney (but only in Michigan on January 15)

HA HA HA HA HA:

In 1972, Republican voters in Michigan decided to make a little mischief, crossing over to vote in the open Democratic primary and voting for segregationist Democrat George Wallace, seriously embarrassing the state's Democrats. In fact, a third of the voters (PDF) in the Democratic primary were Republican crossover votes. In 1988, Republican voters again crossed over, helping Jesse Jackson win the Democratic primary, helping rack up big margins for Jackson in Republican precincts. (Michigan Republicans can clearly be counted on to practice the worst of racial politics.) In 1998, Republicans helped Jack Kevorkian's lawyer -- quack Geoffrey Feiger -- win his Democratic primary, thus guaranteeing their hold on the governor's mansion that year.

With a history of meddling in our primaries, why don't we try and return the favor. Next Tuesday, January 15th, Michigan will hold its primary. Michigan Democrats should vote for Mitt Romney, because if Mitt wins, Democrats win. How so?

For Michigan Democrats, the Democratic primary is meaningless since the DNC stripped the state of all its delegates (at least temporarily) for violating party rules. Hillary Clinton is alone on the ballot.

But on the GOP side, this primary will be fiercely contested. John McCain is currently enjoying the afterglow of media love since his New Hamsphire victory, while Iowa winner Mike Huckabee is poised to do well in South Carolina.

Meanwhile, poor Mitt Romney, who’s suffered back-to-back losses in the last week, desperately needs to win Michigan in order to keep his campaign afloat. Bottom line, if Romney loses Michigan, he's out. If he wins, he stays in.

And we want Romney in, because the more Republican candidates we have fighting it out, trashing each other with negative ads and spending tons of money, the better it is for us. We want Mitt to stay in the race, and to do that, we need him to win in Michigan.

And more here.

Join the Facebook group also.

The next Harris County DA's most important job qualification?

To be able to locate the facilities:

Kelly Siegler said she is being blamed unfairly for the video and e-mails on Rosenthal's work computer, and that in fact she suggested several months ago that technicians on Rosenthal's staff randomly check computers for such abuses by any employee.

A day after saying her husband's e-mail activity at work was solely his personal business, Siegler said the e-mail was offensive and hurtful to many people. "If he's stupid enough to waste his time to send out offensive e-mails, I don't agree with it," she said.

Regardless, Siegler said, she is the best candidate to restore faith in the district attorney's office because she has worked there for 21 years, learning its operations inside and out.

"To put it bluntly, Judge Lykos, Mr. Leitner and Clarence Bradford don't know where the restrooms are in the office," she said.

Ms. Seigler's resume' is presumably filled with more job-specific qualifications than this.

Considering that the Harris County Republicans are now voicing concern over how this might effect their electoral chances in November, I'll point out to Siegler that maybe what the voters of both political parties are actually looking for in the next district attorney is less scatology. And maybe a little bit less bluntness as well.

Muse has more fun with it. There is not going to be enough popcorn in all of Harris County for this much hilarity in the months to come.

Update: More Siegler stupidity ...

Republican district attorney candidate Kelly Siegler told a judge last year that members of Houston's Lakewood Church are "screwballs and nuts" and that she works to keep them off of juries.

And the Attorney General of Texas, Greg Abbott, has finally decided to look into the "official misconduct" of Chuck Rosenthal. Don't expect much to come out of a Republican investigating a Republican in an election year.