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.