Texas retailers back GOP War on Women

It's not just Macy's and Kroger; Gerland's and Brookshire Brothers and others are also on board with the Republican misogyny.

A front-page piece in Tuesday’s Houston Chronicle shedding light on how mega-retailers the likes of Macy’s and Kroger lobbied Gov. Rick Perry to put the kibosh on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is resulting in some public fallout for the companies.

The governor vetoed the Texas version of the equal-pay-for-women legislation -- passed by the Texas Legislature with GOP support at the end of the regular session in June -- after receiving written requests to do so from several retail corporations and associated industry groups. Let's excerpt the most revealing part of the article for those who can't climb over the paywall...

Also writing to seek a veto were representatives of Macy's, the Houston grocery company Gerland Corp., Brookshire Grocery Company, Market Basket, the Texas Association of Business and the National Federation of Independent Businesses.

HEB is a member of the Texas Retailers Association, but lobbyist Rusty Kelley said the company did not lobby against the bill.

The letters to Perry provide a behind-the-scene glimpse of the legislative process. Entities such as the Texas Retailers Association can seek a gubernatorial veto without the knowledge of sponsors. Thompson and her Senate counterpart, Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth, say they were blind-sided by Perry's veto and the retailers' opposition.

Veteran Austin lobbyist Bill Miller said seeking a gubernatorial veto is a common lobby tactic. "That's a smart play. You don't fade the heat (by publicly opposing a bill) on the front end and you win on the back end." He said that, except for the Chronicle's open records request, "no one would be the wiser. You do what you gotta do to protect your client."

To refresh your memory, Bill Miller is a mostly-Republican political consultant. He is co-founder of HillCo Partners, which was previously mentioned here in regard to their efforts to kill "sanctuary cities" legislation in the 2011 legislative session.

(Digression: this is a pluperfect example of how to play both sides against the middle. You do what you gotta do to protect your corporate client who writes you large checks for dispensing your political wisdom. Even when it screws over Texans and politicians of both political parties. Hey, that's -- allegedly -- a smart play.)

On Wednesday, the liberal group Progress Texas started an online boycott of Macy’s and Kroger, asking folks to sign on and refrain from shopping at the stores until they support “equal pay for equal work.”

Citing the Chron’s story, Sen. Sylvia Garcia, D-Houston, followed hours later by announcing that she’s cancelling an appearance at the Macy’s at the Galleria. Garcia was set to kick-off the 2013 annual Texas sales tax holiday, according to her office.

The boycott may be expanding this morning to the predominantly East Texas grocers named above.

This is a BFD. Know why?

Because women in Texas are already losing their health clinics. They have all but lost the right to choose whether or not to give birth. In a state with already criminally low wages for so many of its residents, Texas Republicans (mostly through their agents outside the Legislature, to be clear) are making sure that Texas women do not receive equal pay for the same work that men do. Both of these circumstances would especially be the case in East Texas, where clinic options -- and grocery-shopping options -- were few and far between before all this.

You have to hope that Texas women -- in particular those living  in East Texas who might have been previously inclined to vote R -- are clearly getting the message the Republicans are sending them. And that message is: "We Don't Give a Shit About You."

Update: More from Burnt Orange and from Texas Leftist, with Houston-area store locator maps of the offending retailers.

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.