Chron picks up Don Cook's long-distance bid for Congress

Carol Christian didn't link to me, but that's cool.

A familiar face among Houston's progressive political activists is running for U.S. Congress to help create buzz for the Green Party.

Nothing too unusual there, except Don Cook is running in Congressional District 13 in the north Texas panhandle, some of which is 600 miles from his home.

Thanks to a little known provision of the U.S. Constitution, congressional representatives don't have to live near their constituents - as long as they're in the same state. Even if the state is huge.

This falls under the "any publicity is good publicity" header.

He acknowledges that he's running not so much to win the office as to raise the profile of the Green Party.

"I really feel that the Green Party sees problems that other people aren't talking about, and solutions to problems that people do see (that) are being ignored," he said.

For example, he said, Congress recently voted to end subsidies for wind power but has kept them in place for oil companies.

"There are many areas to explore in the interaction of government and people," Cook said.  Another issue, he said, is how well residents of densely populated districts are represented.

"We should remove districts altogether," he said. "They're all gerrymandered, anyway."  It would be fairer, he said, to elect all 37 of Texas' congressional representatives statewide.

"It eliminates gerrymandering and promotes proportional representation," he said.

Cook has indicated to me in an e-mail this morning that he's pretty certain 37 is the wrong number for Texas Congressional seats... but he's not saying Carol misquoted him.

In seeking a district with a lot of land and a low population, Cook said he considered some in west Texas. But when he looked up District 13 in Wikipedia, he read that it's the most Republican district in the nation.

"That just warmed my heart," he said.

Cook's candidacy, which he announced last month, won't be official until the Green Party nominates him at its statewide convention in April, Cook said.

"I have to convince the delegates that it's better to have me run than not have the party represented," he said.

It's doubtful to become a campaign issue in 2014, but go back and read what Gadfly and Greg said in the comments here.  If Texas held a jungle primary for all 36 members of the House of Representatives that looked sort of like a municipal election for an at-large seat on city council... would that be a good thing or a bad thing?

Three states already do it.  It's debatable whether it strengthens or weakens one of the two dominant political parties, or whether it translates into more moderates of either stripe going to Washington.

A lot of redistricting quarrels would vanish (good).  It may result in even more Texas Republicans in Congress (bad).  With perhaps more than a hundred names appearing on every Texan's ballot, and with instructions to vote for their favorite three dozen... is that too complicated for the average (read: mostly non-) voter?

What other advantages or disadvantages would be involved?  I still like the idea of a geographically based representative, but as with so many things about our current system, it's been corrupted by avarice and ignorance.  But I'm keeping an open mind.  Somebody want to make a case for or against in the comments?

GOP civil war comes to Texas

It is on like Donkey Kong.

Some of Texas’ biggest business trade groups are moving to counter tea party and anti-government forces that have dominated recent Republican primaries.

The Texas Future Business Alliance — a mix of 10 major business groups, including the chemical industry, bankers, builders and contractors — is sending out mailers and providing other support on behalf of GOP candidates who have supported water infrastructure development, highway construction and education spending.

Many of the incumbents have been pilloried as big government spenders and liberals by fiscal hawk groups.

The movement mirrors the schism happening nationally between hard right and establishment Republicans. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce recently pledged $50 million to back pro-business Republicans in U.S. Senate primaries and fight tea party insurgents. Republican leaders, such as House Speaker John Boehner, have castigated hard right groups, accusing them of wanting contributions more than solutions.

“It’s part of the same trend you’re seeing nationally. A lot of the business community is tired of people who don’t want to govern,” said a person involved in the Texas Future Business Alliance, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Guess who's mad, y'all?  "I'm Not a Lobbyist" Mucus.

Michael Quinn Sullivan, president of the fiscal-hawk group Empower Texans, said the Texas Future Business Alliance is nothing but a group of big-money interests wanting taxpayer dollars to flow into their pockets.

He described the consortium as a “fake group” of large trade associations masquerading as a grass-roots organization and sending out leaflets that give incumbents “A Rated” report cards.

“This is what we’ve come to expect coming out of the Washington, anti-Ted Cruz movement,” Sullivan said. “They want people who will vote for cronyism and corporate welfare.”

Sullivan said he did not see the business interest as a battle against tea party groups. Instead, it’s about a divide that’s been in the Republican Party for a long time, he said.

You need enough popcorn to last all the way into March, and then the runoffs in April.  And while the Democrats have their own problems, the Republicans have much, much bigger ones.  Such as the Neanderthals who are their primary-voting base.

The business community is concerned that the Legislature, pushed by tea party groups, “is swinging too far” against government and is unwilling to make even sensible, modest investments. As for corporate contracts, Hammond said, the state has to pay someone to build highways.

“If you cannot advocate for more roads when they’re desperately needed without being accused of being in the pocket of road builders, then there’s no room for honest debate,” Hammond said.

Sullivan countered that fiscal hawks do not oppose investments. “That’s ridiculous,” he said. But they want the money spent carefully, and they are not convinced that is happening.

Rep. Jim Keffer, R-Eastland, is one of about two dozen Republicans the business alliance is backing so far.

He said its support is vital to balance groups “that set themselves up as judge, jury an executioner of all things conservative... They just want to purify the party over and over again where they have only their people doing what they say all the time. That to me is just power, and it’s dangerous for our future,” Keffer said.

Keffer said he is a conservative who wants the state to keep pace with the crush of its huge population growth. The trade coalition is welcomed as a group willing to “support those people who are trying to govern.”

“I’m very glad the business group is standing up,” Keffer said. “It’s about time.”

Watch carefully how this plays out.  It won't just be about who has the most money or the best (sic) consultants.  It may break along a similar fault line as the Ted Cruz-David Dewhurst 2012 primary for the US Senate.  In fact, the lieutenant governor primary battle among the Four Stooges could be a microcosm.  Republican candidates jostling to get furthest to the right may well carry the day in the spring, but perhaps not with the country club conservatives -- desperate to rein them in -- writing big checks to the lesser of two (or three or four or twelve) kooks.

And the open question remains: can Texans finally see through the crazy and vote for sensible candidates of any of the four parties on the ballot in the fall, thus turning back the Tea tide, as has been happening for a couple of cycles in other states?

A stay-tuned development for sure.