By the time I got to Southmore

yesterday morning, it was a street party:

More anecdotal evidence

that something huge is happening.

Yesterday my wife and I had lunch with her co-worker (born in China, now naturalized citizen) and her husband, of German/Pennsylvania Dutch descent. They have lived in Kingwood for several years (an 80% Republican suburb for those unfamiliar). My wife was uncertain about their level of political interest, much less affiliation, so I just wore my River Oaks Area Democratic Women logo polo shirt, which always manages to be a good conversation starter.

We had dim sum at Kim Son in Stafford and then went to the Lunar (Chinese) New Year Festival on the far west side of Houston. Over lunch -- while the girls were in the powder room -- he started asking me questions like "Well, it's a foregone conclusion that the Republicans will carry Texas ... right?" I replied that while that has certainly been the case in the recent past, the tide was turning and this year that likelihood IMHO depended on whether the Democrats picked Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama.

He remarked that his candidate HAD been Ron Paul, but that after researching the white supremacist thing, as well as the claim by Dr. No the constitutional expert that there was no separation of church and state in the document, he was now --with a scowl -- "undecided".

Our conversation continued along this very casual vein until he finally said, "I think that's a good idea; I'll vote in the Democratic primary for Obama and see what happens."

Folks, anything is officially possible. My advice would be to strike up a political conversation with your Republican friends and family in advance of March 4.

And don't forget to invite them to attend the precinct convention.

Sunday Funnies (Stimulant edition)

Top ten reasons conservatives hate McCain

Via the Chron, Libby Quaid of the AP counts 'em down:

1. Campaign finance reform. McCain tried to limit the role of money in politics with measures that, critics say, stomp on the constitutional right to free speech.

2. Immigration. McCain has been a vocal supporter of a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, although he now says he understands the border between the U.S. and Mexico must be sealed first.

3. Tax cuts. McCain twice voted against President Bush's tax cuts, saying in 2001 they helped the wealthy at the expense of the middle class and in 2003 that there should be no tax relief until the cost of the Iraq war was known. But he now wants to extend the tax cuts.

4. Gay marriage. McCain refuses to support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

5. Stem cell research. McCain would relax restrictions on federal dollars for embryonic stem cell research, which critics consider tantamount to abortion.

6. Global warming. Among the loudest voices in Congress for aggressive action against global warming and a frequent critic of the Bush administration on the issue.

7. "Gang of 14" member. One of seven Republicans and seven Democrats who averted a Senate showdown over whether filibusters could be used against Bush judicial nominees.

8. Kerry veep. McCain was approached by the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, about being his running mate. McCain talked with Kerry but rejected the offer.

9. Works with Democrats. See all of the above.

10. Belligerence. McCain can be acerbic toward his critics, such as when he labeled televangelists Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson "agents of intolerance." He reconciled with Falwell in 2006. Conservative James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, said in a statement on the morning of the Super Tuesday primaries that he would not vote for McCain, citing among other things his "legendary temper" and that he "often uses foul and obscene language."

I posted a comment at the story site that I'll repeat here: The Republicans remind me of a mortally wounded marriage, where two people -- not necessarily a man and a woman -- cannot reconcile because they've said too many things they can never take back.

The chattering class of conservative commentators have spewed so much acidic bile about McCain -- and Pastor Huckabee too, for that matter -- that they cannot flip-flop now and support either man without sacrificing whatever is left of their integrity.

Fortunately for them, integrity does not appear to be highly valued within the modern conservative movement.

Mitt surrenders

As predicted here yesterday, the terror of $40 million of his personal fortune squandered and the fear of even more of it wasted in the continuance of a fool's errand forces Willard Romney to submit to the will of his children's inheritance:

"... (I)n this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror," Romney told the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington.

"So therefore I am cutting and running from the global war for the Republican nomination, and am graciously letting the terrorists -- err, the liberal John McCain, win. God help us all."

Audience members were heard screaming "No!", moaning and rending their garments. Seriously:

There were shouts of astonishment, with some moans and others yelling, "No, No."

And on their way out of the conference, as the PA announced the next speaker would be McCain, a chorus of boos greeted the presumptive GOP nominee.

Senor Juan McCain -- that's actually what they are calling him because he's not a xenophobe regarding undocumented immigration -- has earned the enmity of a diverse group of right-wing freaks, including Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, James Dobson, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, and Richard Viguerie. The locals are whining loudly. But it's not all bad: Senator Lapdog Corndog flip-flopped and endorsed the Maverick today.

That might actually hurt Cornyn in the current conservative environment. LMAO

Texas in Play

*I, combined with currents events, am slowly turning Open Source Dem into a regular contributor...

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

Forget Boyd RICHIE’s attempt to collaborate with the GOP to move up the primary date and deliver Texas for Fred BARON -- err, John EDWARDS. It failed, and it was lame in the first place. Now he will try to deliver for Garry MAURO -- umm, Hillary CLINTON.

That is pathetic and no more a favor for CLINTON than it was for EDWARDS.

The best interests of our state and, interestingly, of John EDWARDS -- still the potential kingmaker -- are best served today and every day by plain old republican democracy, specifically by contested state and national conventions … exactly what is shaping up.

Here are Josh MARSHALL and PDiddie on that likelihood.

Already OBAMA is moving his crack South Carolina team to Texas. Both he and CLINTON will be in Houston on 28 February for the Greater Houston Partnership/Sierra Club debate on energy, environment, economy, and security issues (E3+S). Policy wise, John EDWARDS still dominates this race. So ...

“We are the Deciders!”

Not just our votes, but our voices -- and they are many and diverse -- can be heard, if and only if we stop attempts by the state party establishment to “lock down” the state convention and to perpetuate themselves at the risk of losing the general elections -- the one thing, other than wasting money, they are certainly proficient at.

The state and national party hierarchies -- a patronage/daisy chain -- are describing brokered conventions as “chaos theory”. That is just a cute phrase. They no more understand that math than “queuing theory”.

Literati, not technorati, run this party. And they are now in panic mode. We have been in convention planning mode and now need to move towards execution. That needs to be calm and deliberate. This is the populist moment, our moment.

We are prepared. We need to be urgent but not frantic. We are not in danger of losing careers, retirement sinecures, or millions on bad bets; that would be the state party overlords. As Ed Kilgore notes, neither the state nor the national party establishment actually know how to run an orderly convention, as distinct from a beauty pageant. In his own way, that is exactly what Peck Young told us. Ed confirms at the national level what will happen in Austin on June 4: the state party machine will try to turn the convention over to Garry MAURO, less to deliver for Hillary CLINTON than to maintain their own death grip on the party.

So what a caucus of progressive populists can and should do is clear: as we are the party-building caucus, we should take the lead in providing all Texas Democrats with an orderly, productive, and fair convention process.

We do not have to create chaos. The party establishment is doing that for us on their own.

Oh, and the national party of bi-partisan collaborators proves once again they cannot design or proof-read a ballot, this time in Los Angeles. Their “counter-vote suppression theory” of racism hides simple incompetence and legalistic self-deception. Watch this story. The legal particulars of yet another “butterfly ballot” are peculiar to California.

But the general pervasiveness of bi-partisan and non-partisan administrative failure is certainly true of Texas. Yup, the party does not know how to run orderly conventions or even elections. Manipulation and obfuscation come naturally. Republican democracy are mysteries. People are fed up, if not fired up.

Take your Dramamine

...because it's all spin all the time.

Clinton won.

Expectations can be a bitch. The recent polls showing Obama moving up (especially in Clinton country i.e. CA & NJ) plus those early exit polls today certainly created some expectations for tonight that simply weren't met ...

No wait; Obama won.

I don't see how Clinton can win the nomination now. I think she still has a chance...she didn't get knocked out...but it's now Obama's race to lose. He's got more money, he's got more mojo, and Clinton doesn't have any more Arkansas or New Yorks left on the schedule.

As previously snarked, it depends on what the definition of "win" is.

Oh, and while you were watching the piefight, the recession got here. You better have saved the good meds.

Catholics get their ashes, but Mitt bites the dust

He'll be out no later than the weekend:

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney pledged to fight all the way to the Republican nominating convention this summer if necessary, despite being overpowered by John McCain in Super Tuesday contests.

Where have we heard a candidate pledge to battle all the way to the end, only to quit in the next breath? (That doesn't sound too bitter, does it?)

Now if I were Romney, I would withdraw today and endorse Huckster, just to jack with McCain -- and every other Republican who has slammed them both. Of course Mittens despises both men so much that I doubt he will endorse anybody.

McCain-Huckabee? Or McCain-Giuliani? Lord have mercy on their souls.

H2O? No.

Big Ornge:

Obama has, at this point, won 11 states, of 22 in play. Worst-case scenario, he's already won half. If he picks up Alaska, which I suspect he will, he wins the battle of the states.

California is looking like it might head SUSA's way, so that'll be good news for Hillary. But the rest of the night is bleak. She didn't exceed expectations anywhere. She lost states she led big in just a few weeks ago. She's hurting for money. The calendar up ahead is tailor made for Obama. The momentum is there.

And hey, look at that -- Obama just took the lead in Missouri.

Clinton has a big win in CA. Obama has an upset in CT and a comeback victory in MO. Obama wins at least eleven twelve states, significantly exceeding expectations (ten days ago he led the polling in just two states). Clinton leads overall in delegates. Update: Obama wins with over 60% in eight states and three of those with more than 70% of the vote; Clinton wins only one state with 60%+ (Arkansas).

And the attention now turns to Ohio and Texas, voting in exactly one month.

All the way to Denver, all the way down to the wire.

Update (2/6): A great take here from Richard Dunham at Texas on the Potomac:

Best line of the night: Mike Huckabee.

Huckabee has accused Republican rival Mitt Romney of flip-flopping on issues including abortion, gun control and gay rights, declared that Romney now has changed his position on "whining." You see, Romney complained bitterly on Super Tuesday about the tactics used by Huckabee to win the 18 delegates in West Virginia.

"You know, yesterday, Mitt Romney was saying, 'Don't be a whiner,'" Huckabee told CNN. "Now, yesterday he was against whining. Today, he's for whining."

Worst endorsement: John Kerry (of Barack Obama).

The 2004 Democratic presidential nominee couldn't even deliver his own home state.

Best endorsement: Scarlett Johannson (of Barack Obama).

Kerry and Teddy Kennedy failed to bring Massachusetts into the Obama column, but the 23-year-old movie star did her (small) part to create record turnout in Minnesota's Democratic caucuses, including unprecedented participation by the young voters Johannson targeted. Plus, she looks better in photos than Teddy and Kerry.

Biggest upset: Huckabee's win in Alabama.

Mitt Romney ran far below expectations in Alabama, and conservative evangelicals gave Huckabee a narrow win over McCain.

Most interesting race of the night: Missouri.

In the state that has the best track record of picking presidents of any state in the union, both parties had very close contests. With 98 percent of the Missouri vote in, Obama was clinging to a 1 percentage point lead over Clinton. And the Republicans had a tight three-way race, finally won by McCain.

Least interesting race of the night: New York.

Hillary Clinton and John McCain won landslide victories. Lots of delegates. No drama.

Best newspaper story of the night: Michael Tackett of the Chicago Tribune.

Tackett began his story on Super Tuesday by declaring:

As a former president might put it, maybe it depends on what the definition of "win'' is.

McHuckaney

Chaos theory in evidence on the starboard side:

Huckabee beat rivals John McCain and Mitt Romney in West Virginia, Alabama and his home state, and early returns showed him leading in a few more Super Tuesday states. He said he would emerge from the virtual national primary contests as the alternative to McCain, the Arizona senator and Republican front-runner.

"I've got to say that Mitt Romney was right about one thing — this is a two-man race. He was just wrong about who the other man in the race was. It's me, not him," Huckabee said.

Mittens was the winner in Utah amd Massachusetts -- huge upsets for him. But the story of the night has to be the surging candidacy of Gomer Pyle, who has swept through the South and upset the applecart for the GOP. The chattering class seems to think he's won his way into the vice-presidential slot.

McCain-Huckabee. That is really, really funny.

Super Fat Tuesday

Lots of partyin' to do:

The Weekly Wrangle

As you recover from Super Bowl Sunday, check out this week's Texas Progressive Alliance Blog Round-Up, compiled by Vince from Capitol Annex.

Why would Bill Peacock write a commercial for the energy industry? Find out on Bluedaze as TXsharon shines a light into the dark corners of Texas Public Policy Foundation.

Off the Kuff takes a look at the messy finances of state supreme court justice David Medina, and wonders what else is out there that we haven't heard about yet.

Phillip Martin at Burnt Orange Report says thank you to John Edwards.

McBlogger takes a look at the Free Market Foundation's campaign against the Parent PAC and its leader, Carolyn Boyle. Apparently they are unhappy that we endorsed her in 2006. And that she's been beating them and their lame candidates.

Nat-Wu of Three Wise Men tells us why free trade isn't everything it's cracked up to be, at least for the American worker.

WCNews at Eye On Williamson has more from the recent House Elections Committee hearing on voter fraud -- Abbott May Have To Explain His Partisan Voter Fraud Record.

XicanoPwr begins a Politics of Humanity series. The first takes a look the Department of Homeland Security recent decision to eliminate the Violence Against Women Act's domestic violence program that was meant to protect undocumented immigrants from abusive spouses who use their position as citizens to intimidate their spouses who did not have legal immigrant status in the United States. The second post in the series takes a look at Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) inhumane policy of of drugging immigrants and their recent settlement case.

North Texas Liberal notes that we recently passed the one-year mark, meaning President Bush now has less than one year left in his job. Is he planning on coming home to roost when his tenure ends? Not everyone in D-FW thinks that's the best idea.

Open Source Dem at Brains and Eggs has the inside dope on the Harris County Democratic Party's efforts to turn the county blue (and why the partners-in-charge may be shooting themselves in the feet).

Gary at Easter Lemming Liberal News sent people to his other blog for a lesson in how to put someone to sleep with government lies about economics, among other items.

Vince at Capitol Annex wonders if State Rep. Leo Berman (R-Tyler) will actually make good on his claim that he will ask AG Greg Abbott to answer to charges that his "voter fraud" prosecutions are race-based.

We might have a debate in town

With no dog in the Super Bowl fight (sorry Mike Vick), I'm still talking presidential politics, and I'm hoping we have still something to talk about by the time our primary election rolls around:

The (Greater Houston) Partnership and the Sierra Club Foundation have long planned to hold a presidential debate at the George R. Brown Convention Center on Feb. 28, just five days before the March 4 Texas primary.

MSNBC has promised to air the event, with NBC News Washington bureau chief Tim Russert as moderator.

The plan calls for the remaining Democratic candidates to face off in one session, with the Republicans going at it in a separate debate that same evening — assuming no candidate has clinched a party nomination by then.

Originally, the organizers had expected the debate would focus on energy and environmental issues, given the energy sector's importance to the Houston economy.

But realizing theirs could be the last debate before the nominees are finally chosen, the organizers decided to broaden the topics to be discussed, although energy would still be emphasized.

Alas, there is a scheduling conflict:

CNN has announced plans for a presidential debate in Ohio on the same day as one scheduled later this month by the Greater Houston Partnership and MSNBC.

And that could prompt an earlier debate within the campaigns: Which state is tactically the better venue if the nominations aren't decided after next week's Super Tuesday showdown?

Texas awards more nominating delegates, but Ohio is more likely to be a November battleground.

Somebody is going to blink and reschedule. I'm guessing we lose again. It sure would be cool to have a contested Democratic nomination still nip-and-tuck with Texas being able to figure in to the winning difference, and a debate locally to go watch.

Conservatives are neurotic. Whooda thunk?

*Gasp*

A study funded by the US government has concluded that conservatism can be explained psychologically as a set of neuroses rooted in "fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity".

As if that was not enough to get Republican blood boiling, the report's four authors linked Hitler, Mussolini, Ronald Reagan and the rightwing talkshow host, Rush Limbaugh, arguing they all suffered from the same affliction.

All of them "preached a return to an idealised past and condoned inequality".

This brings to mind the possibility of payback for the book right-wing mentalist Michael "Weiner" Savage wrote regarding liberalism as mental disorder.

Republicans are demanding to know why the psychologists behind the report, Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition, received $1.2m in public funds for their research from the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.

The authors also peer into the psyche of President George Bush, who turns out to be a textbook case. The telltale signs are his preference for moral certainty and frequently expressed dislike of nuance.

"This intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliches and stereotypes," the authors argue in the Psychological Bulletin.

One of the psychologists behind the study, Jack Glaser, said the aversion to shades of grey and the need for "closure" could explain the fact that the Bush administration ignored intelligence that contradicted its beliefs about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

Do you think the doctors anticipated the sputtering outrage, the apoplectic blog posts, the rabid frothing of the goonbats?

The authors, presumably aware of the outrage they were likely to trigger, added a disclaimer that their study "does not mean that conservatism is pathological or that conservative beliefs are necessarily false".

Another author, Arie Kruglanski, of the University of Maryland, said he had received hate mail since the article was published, but he insisted that the study "is not critical of conservatives at all". "The variables we talk about are general human dimensions," he said. "These are the same dimensions that contribute to loyalty and commitment to the group. Liberals might be less intolerant of ambiguity, but they may be less decisive, less committed, less loyal."

See? Fair and balanced.

But what drives the psychologists? George Will, a Washington Post columnist who has long suffered from ingrained conservatism, noted, tartly: "The professors have ideas; the rest of us have emanations of our psychological needs and neuroses."

Chronic and hopefully terminal, in Will's case.

Conservatives desperate to stop McCain

As Super Tuesday looms — and the possibility that McCain could all but wrap up the nomination — the chattering conservative class is in an uproar. Talk show host Rush Limbaugh has warned that McCain as standard-bearer would destroy the Republican Party. Author and pundit Ann Coulter, in jaw-dropping heresy, said she would campaign for Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton if McCain wins the party nod. Commentators Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin have come out in support of McCain's rival, Mitt Romney. ...

"If you are a Republican in the broadest sense, there is only one place to go right now, and that's Mitt Romney," said former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum.

No matter how irritated I find myself at the Democrats in the Democratic party, all I have to do is cast a glance rightward and my heart warms.

In the short-term, McCain is helped by Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor and Southern Baptist preacher who remains in the race and could split the conservative vote with Romney in the Bible Belt and elsewhere. Seeking to capitalize, McCain visited Tennessee, Alabama and Georgia on Saturday.

In the long-term, "it is critical for him to build a strong and stable bridge to the constituency that every cycle rings the phones, knocks on the doors and gets the vote out," said Greg Mueller, a conservative Republican strategist. "Endorsements alone will not be enough. Many conservatives will look to see what issues he emphasizes on the campaign trail from now until Election Day."

And that's where he will very likely lose. The base is so utterly demoralized that if they refuse to work for McCain as the nominee, then he is doomed from the beginning.

Frankly, I can't see that happening. Coulter's "endorsement" aside, Republicans will no more stay home in droves than they will vote for the Democrat. The one thing I'm sure of is that it will be a close contest in November if Clinton is the nominee -- too close -- and it won't if Obama is.

With Clinton and McCain still the probable big winners on Tuesday as this is posted, third-party entries will begin to gain momentum. Some combination of Michael Bloomberg, Ralph Nader, almost certainly Ron Paul and possibly a reactionary right candidate could easily combine to siphon off 15% of the popular vote but little of significance in the Electoral College.

An uninspired electorate with demotivated activists on both sides ultimately produces some plurality president in the mushy middle. In 1992 its name was Clinton.

In other words, business as usual.

Sunday Funnies

And starring Hillary Clinton as Tracy Flick

Separated at birth?

McCain-Giuliani 2008

A nation's nightmare for four more years.

After their public lovemaking yesterday in advance of the Maverick-Mittens "liberal-liberal" smack-off, I remain convinced that the Neanderthals and neoconservatives in the Republic Party will overcome the Talibaptists and the millions of Mormon dollars and nominate the best candidate they have left.

They will do so in spite of the alarmed nativists who want a border wall constructed, and who keep screaming that McCain isn't actually a Republican -- a pretty hilarious bit of hysteria, truth to tell. And they will goose-step to the polls in November and pull the handle (or spin the wheel and push the button, as the case may be) for whomever is at the top of their ticket, like they always do. Caterwauling about the lack of a 'conservative' candidate aside.

Rudy on the ticket strengthens McLame in so many ways that it just makes too much sense, their personal fondness notwithstanding.

The Republics are set, they just don't know it yet.

*heaviest of sighs*

Edwards leaving the race. Hope Elizabeth is okay.

From Dallasdoc's diary "John the Baptist", published in the wake of the Iowa caucuses:

It's been clear for over a year that the Democratic primaries would come down to Hillary vs. not-Hillary. Many of us hoped for Al Gore to come into the race and fill in the blank, but he didn't do so. It appears tonight that Barack Obama is The Alternative.

But John Edwards represents something big, something important, something the Democratic party needs to get back in touch with in order to build a durable ruling coalition: economic populism. The ongoing destruction of the American middle class by corporatism disguised as Reaganomics has progressed to the point that political reaction is inevitable. The institutionalized corruption in Washington which has replaced democracy with plutocracy has severely wounded our economy and gutted our Constitutional form of government. Fighting back against these realities is the political work of our time. John Edwards is the messenger of the Gospel of Economic Populism.

Franklin Roosevelt redefined our party and gave it a raison d'etre. His political philosophy was lost in the Cold War consensus, and was one of the casualties of the Vietnam War. The middle class his New Deal built began to fall apart when the ethics of economic democracy Roosevelt preached was forgotten. The economic royalists (as Roosevelt called them) seized their opportunity with a shiny line of bullshit and a soap salesman named Ronald Reagan. They slowly, methodically dismantled Roosevelt's achievements, as far as they could, and persuaded Americans that greed was good.

Roosevelt had a different vision, one we must recapture and honor again. From his Second Inaugural Address:

We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics. Out of the collapse of a prosperity whose builders boasted their practicality has come the conviction that in the long run economic morality pays. We are beginning to wipe out the line that divides the practical from the ideal; and in so doing we are fashioning an instrument of unimagined power for the establishment of a morally better world.

More than Iraq, more than torture, more even than the Constitution, this is the vision the Democratic Party must embrace and offer the country. The middle class is dying and must be revived. Its would-be murderers, the wealthy and big corporations, must be penalized and controlled. That is the vision John Edwards offers the Democratic party. His emphasis on poverty, his fingering of corporate influence as our true enemy, his recognition that recapturing the party will require a long tough fight -- these are lessons the Democrats must truly take to heart.

Barack Obama appears to be the anti-establishment alternative Democrats will be offered. He has a different message to offer, meeting the nation's hunger for change with a different recipe. He has adopted some of the notes in this Rooseveltian symphony, but the feel of his campaign is different. Perhaps he is charting a new winning course, perhaps he is on a detour. I hope Obama realizes that if he takes the mantle of the Democratic party that its soul was defined by Franklin Roosevelt, that Roosevelt's task will be his, and that Roosevelt's enemies will also be his.

John Edwards may not be the party's nominee this year or any year. But John Edwards' message is the one Democrats will need to embrace to build a new New Deal. He may not be the Messiah we need, but he is showing the way.

Judi's Rudy Patootie, whipped and kicked in the booty

Farewell, bald prince.

"To that Angle"

*Dateline Austin/Houston:

After two years as the voice of the Texas Democratic Party, spokeswoman Amber Moon is moving to Houston, where she will head up communications for the Democratic Party in Harris County — her hometown.

Replacement: Hector Nieto, Moon’s deputy.

“With so many competitive races on the ballot, it’s a particularly exciting time to return to Harris County, and I look forward to a repeat of last cycle’s Dallas County success in my own home town,” Moon said in an e-mail.

The Texas Democratic Trust has taken full credit for 2006 success in Dallas, obscuring the role of Royce WEST and the Dallas County Democratic Party itself.

To that ANGLE (pun intended) ...

Attorneys MATHIESSEN and BIRNBERG have added the approach of (a) quietly disparaging some of those elected in Dallas as “unqualified”, (b) staging and recruiting would-be or former GOP judges from big law firms, (c) protecting CRADDICK Democrats, (d) privileging judicial over executive candidates on the countywide ticket, and (e) projecting the “bipartisan diversity” government at City Hall out into the county.

The communication/campaign strategy will be to avoid controversy other than GOP scandals and to rely on racially segmented marketing to exploit demographic projections of likely-voter behavior to sweep Harris County offices up and down the ballot. This is new only in that the countywide slate is full and the campaign consultants may not disparage straight-ticket voting by Democrats, as they typically have done previously.

This could work -- if and only if (a) the Presidential and Senate races are actually inspiring, (b) the GOP continues to spiral into division and demoralization, and (c) scandal or conspicuous dysfunction in the “Democrat-controlled” City Hall does not allow the GOP to run effectively against “the government” they control but Democrats do not actually oppose and indeed are constantly apologizing for or collaborating with.

We could win only to find the GOP using problems with the security of GOP voting technology to get new elections ordered by the GOP-controlled courts.

In any case, the unilateral bi-partisanship -- item (c) above -- is the only thing the local Democratic Party might change now. But under Matt ANGLE’s influence, it will not.

*the musings of irregular contributor Open Source Dem.

Cut-and-run Janek

He pulled the chain because he knew he couldn't win re-election in a new, Democratic Texas in 2010:

Sen. Kyle Janek, R-Houston, announced today that he was resigning his Senate seat, effective June 2, to spend more time with his family.

The resignation date, he acknowledged, is different from the March 10 timetable he gave Senate colleagues in a conference phone call on Monday. He said he prolonged his departure to give more potential candidates time to consider a race to succeed him and to give voters in District 17 more time to consider their options.

A March 10 resignation would have allowed Gov. Rick Perry to schedule a special election on May 10 to fill out the remainder of Janek's term, which expires in January 2011. A June 2 resignation means the governor could either set the special election on the same day as the November general election, which is the next uniform election date, or declare an emergency and set a special election sometime after June 2.

There's plenty of time for aspiring politicos to line up their ducks. Such as ...

Former Harris County Republican Chairman Gary Polland, state Rep. Charlie Howard, R-Sugar Land, and state Rep. Scott Hochberg, D-Houston, have said they will consider a Senate race.

Polland and Howard -- along with extremist Dennis Bonnen of Angleton -- would be steps backward for the residents of SD-17. Hochberg would be a tremendous addition to the Texas Senate.

Kuffner has the numbers that show another seat (two actually; Janek's and Hochberg's House one) ripe to flip, particularly if it makes it onto the ballot in a presidential election year.

Ten reasons to vote for John Edwards

By voting for Edwards, you...

1. Reward and advance progressivism.
We can argue about candidates' voting records and try to gauge their instincts, but there's no question that Edwards has run the most progressive campaign. The proof is plentiful. He's embraced unions, the blogosphere, and the progressive movement as a whole. The stated and demonstrated rationale is to fight economic injustice; rhetorically and substantively, he's run the most populist presidential campaign in years. On every major issue--taxes, climate change, health care, foreign policy, trade, you name it--he's embraced policies more progressive than his rivals. He alone rejects nuclear power and the Global War on Terror frame. He alone opposes expanding the NAFTA model to South America. He alone has called on the Democratic Party to do what he's done his entire career: say no to K-Street cash. The better a progressive campaign does, the stronger progressivism becomes. To vote for Edwards is to increase the chance that progressivism becomes dominant in the party and the country.

2. Pull the race to the left.
There may not be a blogger, pundit, or publication that hasn't recognized the influence of Edwards. Paul Krugman, Ezra Klein, Dean Baker, Robert Bosorage, Katrina Vanden Heuvel, Jonathan Tasini, Jonathan Singer, Matt Ygelsias, The Wall Street Journal, the Economist, Rolling Stone (among many others: they all point out the obvious: that Edwards has tugged the race to the left. And should he remain a factor in the race he'll continue to do so. To cite just on concrete example, the McCain-Lieberman global warming bill (better known as the great corporate giveaway of 2008) may come to the Senate floor during the race. With Edwards having announced his early opposition to it, Obama (who originally sponsored the bill) and Clinton will have little choice but to vote against it. Recently Edwards used his platform to make the homelessness of vets a topic of national discussion and this week he'll travel to New Orleans to give a speech about poverty. Remember New Orleans? Neither Obama nor Clinton have been talking about it much. I have a feeling they will be soon, though.

3. Preserve the possibility of (an unlikely) victory.
There are several elaborate scenarios by which Edwards could capture the nomination. Some involve the implosion of one or both of the other candidates. Others involve buyers' remorse combined with JRE's resiliency and the respect it engenders. Others involve a surprise victory in Oklahoma next week. Others involve potential Edwards strength in the March 4th states of Texas and Ohio. Others involve the prospect of a McCain nomination and a renewed focus on electability. Others involve a deadlocked convention at which Clinton or Obama agrees to back Edwards in return for the VP slot. Make no mistake, an Edwards victory is highly unlikely, but if you don't believe in long shots, why bother being a progressive?

4. Make Edwards kingmaker (or platform editor).
The more delegates he wins, the more power Edwards will have to shape the race and the party's identity. He could perhaps swing his support to the candidate more willing to embrace progressive policies or rewrite the party's platform to include stronger anti-poverty and pro-labor measures. Who knows? Maybe he'd even force the party to commit to refusing K-Street cash. One can dream.

5. Reject the self-fulfilling nominating system driven by polls, pundits, and money.
There's something disturbing, Orwellian and tautological, about the notion that Edwards can't win because pundits say he can't win. A relative few have voted. Until someone wins anyone can win. Do you want to uphold such an regressive system that effectively lets the media and the establishment choose our choices? Do you want to be another brick in the wall or part of the bulldozer the knocks the wall down? Over at Daily Kos, Bruce McF has been doing a great job making the philosophical and political case for supporting Edwards. Our current system of picking out leaders is self-fulfilling, but so is populism. Listen to Bruce:

Populist movements don't build themselves, they grow from a process of people learning how to support a series of populist campaigns in a populist way, rather than as passive consumers of candidates produced and marketed to win the greatest market share in the electoral marketplace.

It doesn't matter what the "horse race" outcome of the campaign is, if we fight the campaign. Fighting it, we learn how to fight. Learning how to fight political battles, we become citizens again. Becoming citizens again, we reclaim the Republic that lies dormant beneath the bread and circuses of modern American society.

6. Sign on to a movement.
His message isn't going away, nor is his core of support. His support may evolve into an organization -- a more powerful version of PDA, which grew out of the Kucinich campaign. In any case, his online and real world supporters will continue to organize and agitate, to fight both corporate Republican and Democrats.

7. Increase the likelihood of a brokered convention, which would be good for Democrats.
Don't believe the lie that it's essential for the party to settle on a nominee early. Drama creates interest creates viewers created voters. If the convention were an actual event rather than a choreographed variety show, ratings would go through the roof. That can only be good for the party.

8. Piss off the establishment.
Pundits and the party power structure want Edwards to go away, not least because he's John Edwards. You have a great chance to piss them off; what else really do you need to know?

9. Do something good for your soul.
If you take to his message of economic justice and enlightened populism, maybe you should say so with a vote. Maybe if you're inclined to support him you should vote for him precisely because you're inclined to do so. Maybe there's something healthy and soul-enriching about voting for the candidate you like the most. Maybe it's better -- cleaner -- to vote affirmatively rather than strategically.

10. Come Up with Your Own Reason (I ran out of time but didn't want to change the title)

Disrespectful non-handshakes aside ...

... the best line of the SOTU (I nearly type STFU every single time) goes to my man John:

"Even he and his people admit it's gonna take months for this stimulus to actually kick in," said Edwards before a buoyant crowd of over 400 people (in Nashville, TN). "The truth of the matter is, it is so important that between now and January of 2009 that we stand up to this president, that we stand up for what's right, that we don't let him continue to make it so hard for the middle class."

Earlier in Chattanooga, Edwards said, "I think a lot of us know what the state of the union is."

"And the president will walk into the Congress, to the United States House of Representatives, and he'll give a speech about his stimulus plan to try to stimulate the economy.

"And you know what'll happen is he'll go in there and the Congress - who kinda quit listening to him a while back - but they'll all stand up, cheer, clap. You know, the truth is that Washington is out of touch with what's happening here in the real world."

Let's help him reach this modest goal today.

A victory today on FISA

Great work by everyone today ... with the possible exception of the waffling, prevaricating Louisiana Democrat, Mary Landrieu. smintheus has the synopsis:

Well this afternoon we won a second improbable victory against the FISA bill that rewards telecoms for joining George Bush in breaking the law. The Republicans didn't come close to invoking cloture against Sen. Chris Dodd's filibuster. In fact, they couldn't muster even 50 votes. Cloture attracted only 48 votes (to 45 against).

Republicans then blocked a Democratic attempt to move ahead to a vote to add another thirty days to the temporary FISA extension, which is set to expire next week. Democrats wanted to allow the Senate some time to debate the complicated issues surrounding FISA legislation. Republicans, by contrast, did not think it right that a deliberative body should devote any more time to actual deliberation. Instead, they said, they feared that Bush would veto any such extension. It's is as good an excuse as they've ever come up with for doing nothing.

So tomorrow at 2:00 PM EST the Senate will resume debate on the Intelligence Committee's version of the FISA bill -- the one that provides for retroactive immunity for telecoms. And presumably Dodd's filibuster will resume as well.

Tomorrow Democrats in the House may attempt to pass their own version of a thirty-day extension and then pass it on to the Senate. If so, McConnell may be forced to permit a vote on a similar bill.

There are plenty of plaudits to go around today: To Chris Dodd for organizing an effective and critical push back against the Bush administration's further aggrandizement of its nearly monarchical powers; to nearly all Democrats in the Senate for standing foursquare with Dodd (apart from three four who voted with Republicans: Senators Pryor, Ben Nelson (NE), and Landrieu, and Lincoln); to Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama for returning to Washington for the vote; to Sen. Lieberman for staying out of DC while he campaigns for a Republican presidential candidate.

And to voters who made their voices heard in the Capitol. A lot of people were skeptical in December, when activists began organizing this effort to support the Dodd filibuster, that it was possible to budge a cynical Senate back in the direction of upholding the rule of law. Two victories later, those doubts should be at an end.

How many will wear them?

For seven long years, Preztledent Bush's lickspittles in Congress helped push forward his failed conservative agenda. This week Americans United for Change began delivering "I’m a Bush Republican" buttons to all of the Republicans in the House and Senate, in advance of Bush’s final State of the Union Address today, with this message: "Your votes helped build his legacy; you should show your support for him by proudly declaring that you’re a Bush Republican."



Tonight, as cameras scan the House Chamber during the State of the Union Address, we’ll see how many Republicans -- those who have voted for Bush’s policies on Iraq, the economy, energy and health care -- are willing to put their lapels where there votes have been and wear a button with this simple message: "I’m a Bush Republican."

Will Senator $7.5 Million Corndogs wear it? How about Kay Bailey? Will John Cumbersome? What about Goofy Louie Gohmert or Kevin "DWI/flak jacket in church" Brady?

Taking a drink for each button you spot in the crowd is not the official SOTU drinking game. THIS is.

FISA. Today.

Jane Hamsher at firedoglake breaks the good news that both Senators Clinton and Obama will be on the floor this afternoon to vote against McConnell's cloture vote on the Intelligence Committee's pro-telco amnesty FISA bill.

This is good news for keeping the fight going, and good news for us. Citizen action, our pressure, is making a difference. The massive push back from the left has actually succeeded in throwing a monkey wrench into the works. That's not yet an out and out win, but it's movement in the right direction. Defeating this cloture vote is more movement. Forcing either a short-term extension of the PAA or letting the bill lapse altogether buys more time, and more opportunity, as Glenn Greenwald explains.

Even just a two-week or one-month extension will allow more time to marshall the opposition to telecom immunity and a new FISA bill and to do what's possible to encourage the House to stand firm behind their bill -- in exactly the way that the Dodd delay in December prevented quick and easy resolution. The longer this drags on without resolution, the more possible it is to push the opposition to a tipping point, and sometimes unexpected developments or even some luck (such as McConnell's overplaying his hand on Thursday) can prevent it all from happening.

As the events of the last two months demonstrate, if citizen opposition is channeled the right way, it can make a genuine difference in affecting the course of events in Washington. Defeating telecom immunity will keep alive the lawsuits that will almost certainly reveal to some extent what the Government did in illegally spying on Americans over the last six years or, at the very least, produce a judicial adjudication as to its illegality. And, in turn, the effects from that could be extremely significant. Because victories are so rare, it's easy to get lulled into believing that none of these campaigns are ever effective and that citizens can never affect any of it, which is precisely why it's so important to remind ourselves periodically of how untrue that proposition is.

So keep pushing, all the way to until 3:30 this afternoon (CST).

The Senators we need to convince are those who voted with the Republicans to table the Leahy substitute amendment, the version of the bill that contained all of those protections and did NOT allow telco amnesty. One of them, Rockefeller, has already said he'll vote no on cloture. Call the rest of the Senators and tell them to stand with their majority on today's cloture vote and vote no.

• Bayh (202) 224-5623
• Carper (202) 224-2441
• Inouye (202) 224-3934
• Johnson (202) 224-5842
• Landrieu (202)224-5824
• McCaskill (202) 224-6154
• Mikulski (202) 224-4654
• Nelson (FL) (202) 224-5274
• Nelson (NE) (202) 224-6551
• Pryor (202) 224-2353
• Salazar (202) 224-5852

In addition, call or e-mail your own Senators. Both CREDO and EFF have great tools to make it easy.

The Weekly Wrangle

Time for another edition of the Texas Progressive Alliance's weekly blog round-up, compiled by Vince from Capitol Annex, with thanks to Charles from Off The Kuff for assistance.

Off the Kuff looks at the woes of the Harris County GOP and what it may mean in November.

North Texas will have one less class II commercial injection well pumping toxic soup underground, reported by TXsharon on Bluedaze.

TXDOT has dug itself into quite a hole by using your money to lobby for the Trans-Texas Corridor, and to pay for an advertising campaign to sell the wildly unpopular toll road to the citizens of Texas. McBlogger has the details and a great video.

Hal at Half Empty got his TI-83 out and ran the numbers on the presidential primaries. Conclusion? Texas has a chance to crown a king (or queen).

WhosPlayin? looks at the case of a teen brought up on charges for "huffing" hand sanitizer and is frustrated at the lack of discretion caused by "zero-tolerance" policies.

The action plan for Monday's FISA-with-telecom-immunity legislation is contained in PDid's post at Brains and Eggs. Don't strain your dialing finger, and don't forget to call Senators Corndog and Hutch. It's a waste of time, yes, but they still need to hear from us.

NYTexan at BlueBloggin explains who Voters, Pledged Delegates and Super Delegates are and how they influence the Democratic party nomination at the convention.

Are you a MOTO? If not, you will be after reading State Sen. Kirk Watson's guest blog this week at Capitol Annex.

North Texas Liberal reveals which celebrity is destroying the planet... and no, it's not Britney Spears.

Could we be looking at the first upward trend in labor membership since 1983? The Texas Blue thinks we just might be.

Sunday Funnies (nap time edition)

GOP begins to coalesce around ... Romney?!

Donklephant:

Looks like they’re incredibly scared of what a McCain nomination would look like, so they’re rallying around Mitt. It’s puzzling to me, especially when they railed Kerry for being such a flip flopper in 2004, but these are the times we live in and what was wrong then is now, ahem, right.

Personally, I think it’s an incredibly bad move because McCain is really the only Republican who can pull the swing voter into the Republican tent this year, but hey ... they’ve gotta do what they’ve gotta do.

A remarkable and completely unforeseen development by me. More proof that I can no longer even remotely think like a Republican (thank Jeebus).

It's turning on a matter of who-knows-best on the economy versus the Iraq war:

Romney, the former Massachusetts governor and venture capitalist, casts himself as a business-savvy economic turnaround artist amid recession anxiety, while McCain, the Arizona senator and former Vietnam veteran, portrays himself as a courageous wartime commander in chief in a dangerous world.

"He has an enormous disadvantage when it comes to the topics of changing Washington or fixing our economy," Romney said Sunday, arguing that he is far stronger than McCain on both issues.

Countered McCain: "Even if the economy is the, quote, No. 1 issue, the real issue will remain America's security" — and, unlike him, Romney is deficient in that area.

Florida will be the end of the line for 9iu11ani and Huckababee. But Mittens and Maverick may battle it out all the way to the convention, like their Democratic counterparts.

Sunday Funnies (brunch edition)

Click for bigger and read all the panels, because they're even better than usual this week.

Outta Carolina

Let's go to Jerome for some what-SC-means-going-forward insight (recall as you read the following that Florida, by virtue of having moved up its primary in defiance of the DNC, has lost its certification of delegates):

The Clintons seem to have seen this blowout coming, they yesterday released PR's announcing Bill Clinton would be Kansas City, and Hillary Clinton in Nashville (last night).

This now sets up a PR/expectations battle over Florida on Tuesday. After Obama went up on the air in a national buy in Florida, the Clintons seemed to have said off-the-record that the agreement (not to campaign there) was off, but on the record they remained committed to it. On Friday, they released this PR about Florida, saying a few things in it:

1. Clinton will ask that the FL & MI delegates be seated (though not exactly clarifying as to when/if their delegates are to be counted toward the nomination).

2. That Clinton will continue abiding to the pledge to not campaign in Florida.

3. That Clinton expects others will as well.

Obama got the huge victory and momentum that he wanted out of South Carolina. With a double-digit lead in the polls heading in, it was expected, but still -- it comes with momentum. What does he do with it, especially in regards to Florida?

He could either continue to ignore Florida, ask the press too as well, and hope that it doesn't matter. Or Obama could go long and head into Florida, breaking the pledge that it doesn't matter any longer (which #3 above is trying to head off).

Neither is that great of a choice for Obama. Ignoring it sets up a process story over the next three days that ends in Clinton's favor; and his campaigning in Florida the next three days is risky because he's been behind in the polls and it would up the stakes.

Everyone would bet that the Obama campaign has already made up its mind and will ignore Florida, like he did Michigan. I don't really see how that's a winning strategy for Obama. Florida is different, first because Obama is on the ballot in Florida, and second, because it's Florida. Obama has won SC by a 20-percent plus blowout, but Clinton will be able to reverse that claim in FL. And what matters more, FL or SC? In the first big state to have a primary, a week ahead of Feb 5th, Clinton will be seen as victor over Obama.

Update: Clinton reneges on her agreement to stay out of Florida. It's only a victory speech after polls are closed, but belies the sore loser/ ungracious winner behavior Mrs. Clinton is making a habit of. This is more of the Atwater/Rove style of politics we're accustomed to now. Look for more sliming of Obama next week.

Super Duper Tuesday is where Mrs. Clinton regains the upper hand. Unless the Obama tsunami has greater extension than I think. And it could, if Frank Rich is right:

(Now that Obama has won South Carolina) -- the party needs him to stop whining about the Clintons’ attacks, regain his wit and return to playing offense. Unlike Mrs. Clinton, he would unambiguously represent change in a race with any Republican. If he vanquishes Billary, he’ll have an even stronger argument to take into battle against a warrior like McCain.

And John Edwards salvaged a bit of good news out of his home state (which he won four years ago) with his 18% showing and a handful of delegates. This benchmark, repeated in every state from here on, solidifies the kingmaker strategy that is left to him.

Sunday Funnies (breakfast edition)

SC's primary colors will be black and white

Greg Palast makes the case that a race card does trump a gender card. But maybe it's the union card we ought to be more concerned about ...

South Carolina 2000: Six hundred police in riot gear facing a few dozen angry-as-hell workers on the docks of Charleston. In the darkness, rocks, clubs and blood fly. The cops beat the crap out of the protesters. Of course, it’s the union men who are arrested for conspiracy to riot. And of course, of the five men handcuffed, four are black. The prosecutor: a white, Bible-thumping Attorney General running for Governor. The result: a state ripped in half -- White versus Black.

South Carolina 2008: (Today), the Palmetto State may well choose our President, or at least the Democrat’s idea of a President. According to CNN and the pundit-ocracy, the only question is: Will the large black population vote their pride (for Obama) or for “experience” (Hillary)? In other words, the election comes down to a matter of racial vanity.

The story of the dockworkers charged with rioting in 2000 suggest there’s an awfully good reason for black folk to vote for one of their own. This is the chance to even the historic score in this land of lingering Jim Crow, where the Confederate Flag flew over the capital while the longshoreman faced Southern justice.

But maybe there’s more to South Carolina’s story than Black and White.

Let’s re-wind the tape of the 2000 battle. It was early that morning on the 19th of January when members of International Longshoremen’s Association Local 1422 “shaped up” to unload a container ship which had just pulled into port. It was hard work for good pay. An experienced union man could earn above $60,000 a year.

In this last hold-out of the Confederacy, it was one of the few places a black man could get decent pay. Or any man.

That day, the stevedoring contractor handling the unloading decided it would hire the beggars down the dock, without experience or skills -- and without union cards -- willing to work for just one-third of union scale.

That night, union workers -- black, white, whatever -- fought for their lives and livelihoods.

At the heart of the turmoil in South Carolina in 2000 then, was not so much black versus white, but union versus non-union. It was a battle between those looking for a good day’s pay versus those looking for a way not to pay it. The issue was -- and is -- class war, the conflict between the movers and the shakers and the moved and shaken.

The dockworkers of Charleston could see the future of America right down the road. Literally. Because right down the highway, they could see their cousins and brothers who worked in the Carolina textile mills kiss their jobs goodbye as they loaded the mill looms onto trains for Mexico.

President Bill Clinton had signed NAFTA, made China a “most favored nation” in trade and urged us, with a flirtatious grin, to “make change our friend.”

But change apparently wasn’t in a friendly mood. In 2000, Guilford Mills shuttered its Greensboro fabric plant and reopened it in Tampico, Mexico. Four hundred jobs went south. Springs Mills of Rock Hill, SC, closed down and abandoned 480 workers. Fieldcrest-Cannon pulled out of York, SC, and Great America Mills simply went bust.

South Carolina, then, is the story of globalization left out of Thomas Friedman’s wonders-of-the-free-market fantasies.

This week, while US media broadcasts cutesy photo-ops from black churches and replay the forgettable spats between candidates, the real issues of South Carolina are thankfully laid out in a book released today: On the Global Waterfront, by Suzan Erem and E. Paul Durrenberger. They portray the case of the Charleston Five dockworkers as an exemplary, desperate act of economic resistance.

Friedman’s bestseller, The World is Flat, begins with his uplifting game of golf with a tycoon in India. Erem and Durrenberger never put on golf shoes: their book is globalization stripped down to its dirty underpants.

While Friedman made the point that he flew business class to Bangalore on his way to the greens to meet his millionaire, Global Waterfront’s authors go steerage. And the people they write about don’t go anywhere at all. These are the stevedores who move the containers of Wal-Mart T-shirts from Guatemala to sell to customers in Virginia who can’t afford health insurance because they lost their job in the textile mill.

And the book talks about (cover the children’s ears!) labor unions.

South Carolina is union country. And union-busting country. But who gives a flying fart about labor unions today? Only 7%, one in fourteen US workers belongs to one. That’s less than the number of Americans who believe that Elvis killed John Kennedy.

Think “longshoremen” and what comes to mind is On the Waterfront with Marlon Brando, the good guy, beating up the evil union boss. The union bosses were the thugs, mobbed-up bullies, the dockworkers’ enemies. The movie’s director, Elia Kazan, perfectly picked up the anti-union red-baiting Joe McCarthy zeitgeist of that era -- which could go down well today.

Elected labor leaders are, in our media, always “union bosses.” But the real bosses, the CEOs, the guys who shutter factories and ship them to China ... they’re never “bosses,” they’re “entrepreneurs.”

Indeed the late and lionized King of Union Busters, Sam Walton, would be proud today -- were he alive -- to learn that the woman he called “my little lady,” Hillary Clinton, whom he placed on Wal-Mart’s board of directors, is front-runner for the presidency. She could well become America’s “Greeter,” posted at our nation’s door, to welcome the Saudis and Chinese who are buying America at a guaranteed low price.

Black vs. white, men vs. women, grown-ups vs. children playing in the mud. We'll find out who won -- or lost -- this evening.