No debate about the number of debates, or who should be included

Kuffner is surprisingly wrong, while Campos is just being consistent. Both reference the Houston Chronicle's op-ed on mayoral debates, with an excerpt from the newspaper the third of the following.

It’s hardly clear to me that having candidates beyond Mayor Parker and Ben Hall in a debate will yield a “constructive conversation”. The candidates not named Parker or Hall would have to be running constructive campaigns for there to be some chance of that happening, and so far the evidence for that is lacking. The principle of democracy argues in favor of inclusiveness, but the principle of imparting useful information to as many voters as possible argues for limiting the debate to those that have something useful to say.

==========

I totally disagree with their take to include all the candidates in the debates.  That would be a waste of everybody’s time. 

==========

Houston's future is too important to limit the mayor's race to one debate, and we're far too diverse to restrict debates to an incumbent and a self-funded millionaire challenger. Putting multiple candidates on stage will provide a panoply of perspectives and a constructive conversation about our city's needs. Municipal issues don't always make for the most exciting discussions, but the horse-race atmosphere of elections provides a more compelling backdrop for topics like the city budget.

While we hope Ben Hall will use the debates to explain why he is spending his personal fortune on an uphill battle to unseat the mayor, the time for one-on-one debates is during a runoff. The general election should provide voters with multiple options for what our future will look like. Whether the race for mayor, controller or city council seats, voters are best served when candidates debate the issues and define what it means to be a city that is building forever.

==========

I've posted a response to both men at their respective blogs, but I'll expand on what I said there in case the comments don't make, or remain in, the light of day.

We cannot have a functioning democracy where pundits and insiders declare who gets to be included in or excluded from public debate fora. Paying the filing fee -- or submitting the required signatures -- should be enough to grant access to the public conversation. If you want to take note of those organizations who host debates without including all ballot-qualified candidates -- which is their prerogative but is just as wrong -- then watch this space for future developments.

The people who make a living in politics, those who want to curry favor with elected officials and their staff and advisors, and all other assorted lackeys, lickspittles, and hangers-on DO NOT GET, ARE NOT ENTITLED (yes, I'm shouting now) to set the ground rules with regard to who is allowed to participate in the democratic process. Really, it's as simple as that.

Anybody who agrees with me should look askance at people like that. Anybody who disagrees can go get fucked. In their arse.

Oh, one more dumbass thing from Campos.

Excuse me, but when did Ron Green become controversial?  Was he one of the fellas that ran on Highway 288 and blocked traffic?  Does he use PEDs?  I don’t know about that.

Of course you don't, you jackass moron. It's not like it was in the newspaper or anything.

GOP fever shows no sign of breaking

-- Former chair of the Republican Party of Texas Cathie Adams:

Speaking with Christian radio host Rick Wiles last week in an exchange first captured by Right Wing Watch, Adams decried a biometric scanning proposal present in immigration reform legislation already passed by the Senate, claiming that it would give amnesty to people from Muslim countries who "are not here with the best intentions for America."

When Wiles decried a "biometric scanning" proposal present in the Senate's bill, Adams suggested that such a plan would manifest itself by giving "lost foreigners" the sort of "mark of the beast" cited in End Times prophecies.

"And, of course, we know in biblical prophecy that that is the End Times," Adams said of the initiative. "That is going to be the brand either on our foreheads or on the back of our hands. That is demonic through and through. That is End Times prophecy. There is no question about that."

-- House Minority Leader Eric Can'tor, challenged by no less than Fox New host Chris Wallace:

“You talk about creating jobs, you talk about growing the economy, but you have spent the last week in the House on passing your agenda, a series of bills called Stop Government Abuse,” Wallace said. “Is what you’ve been doing the best way to spend Congress’ time when you’re about to go on a recess for five full weeks?”

When Cantor tried to defend some of the laws the House had passed, including a measure to prevent “bureaucrats” from receiving bonuses, Wallace pressed him.

“Rightly or wrongly, none of these bills you’ve passed is going to become law,” Wallace said. “Your own members say they’re not going to pass the Senate, the president won’t sign them. Let’s talk reality. You haven’t passed the farm bill. You’ve only passed four of the twelve appropriations bills you’re supposed to pass. We face a government shutdown and a debt limit in the fall. Is this the best way to spend your time, passing bills that aren’t going to become law?”

“You’ve got the president out giving campaign speeches again, as if we’re in the middle of the election again,” Cantor objected.

“Tend to your own knitting,” Wallace replied. “You could pass a farm bill. You have the power of the purse! Only four of the twelve appropriation bills have even passed. Why not do what the House is supposed to do?”

When you have lost Fox, you've lost the country. More...

Cantor dodged the vacation question, because he is the one who designed the schedule. The 126-day 2013 House work schedule was his idea. Of course, he is not going to take responsibility for only leaving 9 legislative days out of two months to avoid a government shutdown. House Republicans want that confrontation. Even though the manufactured crisis strategy hasn’t worked for two years, they are going to go back to that well again.  

Wonkette always does it better.

“Why is Congress full of morons, Eric Cantor? Why does it suck so very very hard, Eric Cantor? Why is attempting to repeal Obamacare your go-to solution for just about every pressing problem facing the American people, Eric Cantor? Aren’t we heading for a major disaster because you guys are too busy playing grabass to actually get down to the work of real governance?”

Update: Even Politifact found its pants were on fire trying to fact-check (sic) Cantor's remarks.

-- Texas agriculture commissioner candidate Eric Opiela:

He says our Texas way of life is under attack. This land, Texas, is where he learned the value of hard work.

That Obama and his administration will stop at nothing to further their radical agenda. He doesn’t say what the radical agenda is.

But it’s why he’s running for Agriculture Commissioner. To fight the federal government.

Eric Opiela is concerned about future generations. Like his son Ryan. But apparently not his daughter.

It’s Eric Opiela’s Texas. It’s a man’s world.

Get used to that "Fightin' Obama" bullshit from every single Republican running for office, including Houston city council. It's all they have to run on.