Mario Gallegos 1950-2012

State Sen. Mario Gallegos, 62, a Democratic lawmaker whose 22-year career in the Texas Legislature was marked by courage, controversy and dogged commitment to issues of importance to the Hispanic community, died Tuesday afternoon at Methodist Hospital in Houston from complications of liver disease.

Gallegos, the first Hispanic elected to the state Senate from Harris County, took a special interest in public education, minority hiring, criminal justice, redistricting and other issues that he believed would have an effect on the lives of the predominantly working-class residents who made up the majority of his state Senate district.

In 2007, only weeks after undergoing a liver transplant, a sick and weakened Gallegos ignored a doctor's call to return to Houston and installed a hospital bed in the office of the Senate sergeant-at-arms so he could cast his vote against a bill requiring voters to show photo identification. Gallegos argued the bill would discriminate against minority voters.

The rest of his obit at the link, including the good, the bad, and the ugly. Gallegos' name is on the ballot for November.

Gallegos ran unopposed in the Democratic primary, but faced Republican opposition from R.W. Bray in the November election.

If Gallegos is re-elected posthumously in his heavily Democratic district, the governor would call a special election for May 11 (2013)...

The sad demise of the senator sets off an unfortunate behind-the-scenes scrum to succeed him in the state senate.That will be the subject of future posts, however. Today we mourn the loss of a senator who always represented the causes of working people, of Latinos, and of progressives. Rest in peace, Senator Gallegos.

Bounce back or fall further?

The race for the White House has tightened significantly, even in states like Pennsylvania. Republicans are trying to discern feces from shoe polish about the Libyan embassy attack, and who is responsible for it. Obama's missteps in retrospect are under the magnifying glass.

So tonight -- similar to one about 32 years ago, where the questions surrounding the incumbent president were similar and yet different -- is another inflection point in this election season.

The past two weeks seem to have borne that out. The slide in support for Obama appears to have leveled off in most of the polls (see here, here, here) right around their June low points. On Wall Street, this floor is called a support level — the point at which demand will prevent further price declines. If one looks at the long-term polling trend in the presidential race, there are two clear stories: Romney has been making gradual gains, and Obama has yet to fall behind enough to clearly prevent him from winning re-election.

Yes, that's where it stands this morning. Where it stands this evening is any partisan spinner's guess.

-- Michael Tomasky has some good advice for the president. Here's some of that.

Be a fighter for beliefs. I wrote this already, but it needs to be on this list. Obama must communicate that he wants to spend four more years fighting for the things he believes in and the people he represents.

Link Romney to Bush on policy. Absolutely crucial. This would sound something like: “Friends, let’s look over a little recent history. In 2001 President Bush came into office saying he was going to cut taxes and decrease regulations on Wall Street and the banks, and the economy would go gangbusters. Well, he did that, and we saw what happened—record deficits and the biggest economic crisis in 80 years.

“I’ve spent the last four years digging us out of this ditch. No help from the other side, mind you. But I have, and now we’re finally getting somewhere positive—the lowest unemployment rate in four years, the highest consumer confidence in five.

“And along comes my opponent here, and what’s he say? He wants to cut taxes and repeal regulations on Wall Street and the banks. Exactly the policies that created the crisis in the first place. Friends, I know your memories aren’t that short. They’re gonna take us right back to where we were.”

-- More Tomasky from this piece.

Obama needs to make Mitt unacceptable again. On his tax plan. On loopholes. On his vagueness. On the promise that a huge tax cut will spur the economy and generate more revenue, which we heard before (and please, dude, mention the name Bush). On Medicare. Why is that so damn hard? Everybody keeps saying that’s hard. It is not hard. Bill Clinton did it. Then everyone keeps saying that only Clinton has the chops to do things like that. Nonsense. Here: “Governor, as you well know, that $716 billion is savings, not a cut. If you spend it as you propose, you’re just spending the Medicare trust fund down faster. You’re making Medicare go broke faster. It’s like taking money out of your child’s college fund before he gets to college. That’s maybe why your running mate agrees with me on this one. And you must know this. So either you don’t get how it works or you’re intentionally misleading people.”

The thing about this language is that it's Obama-styled, forceful and direct without being loopy and confrontational. Except that loopy and confrontational worked pretty well for Mitt in the first debate, and really well for Joe Biden last week.

I just don't think Obama can or will go there. But he does have to punch, and he must counterpunch.

I remember attending a gathering of Democrats four years ago and being angered by the president's lack of a boxing strategy against the furious, blustering, fairly unhinged John McCain. (In a subsequent post about 2008's vice-presidential debate I explained this better -- scroll to the last). McCain lived up to his reputation in Debate II; we will have to see what Romney pulls out.

My guess is that Romney can't count on a cowed Obama again, distracted by his anniversary or whatever else. He's got to knock Obama off stride rather than hope for another stumble. The Republican is certainly capable of saying anything at all to reach that goal. Some points are likely to be scored on the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens. That will be crass but predictable, so the president better have a good comeback.

But there is always something unexpected. A Sistah Souljah moment perhaps, from Mitt. Tomasky again, if that happens...

Obama has to be ready for that or another surprise. If it’s that one, I think Obama’s best response is probably not even to engage on the level of policy, but just to level him with something like, “Boy, you’ll just say anything now, won’t you? For a year and half, as long as he was seeking Republican votes, this guy went around and bragged out how much he was cutting taxes. And now that he wants everybody’s vote, suddenly he’s a tax raiser!” Et cetera.

In other words, I am conceding that that would be a smart thing for Romney to do, and that Obama’s policy answers to it are limited. As long as the people who despise tax increases would let him get away with this—and they would, for now—Obama would be a little boxed in. That’s where the mot juste comes in handy. Ding him for saying anything. Make the subject not what taxes the rich pay, but that Romney has no core.

So if Romney pulls a rabbit out of hat, Obama has to blast it with a shotgun.

But can he do that?

Whatever happens tonight, the "right-wing-leaners" will either fall more right or fall back toward undecided. And the stage will be set for the third and final debate, on October 22nd. Whatever happens tonight, that last debate will be even more interesting. The debate the following evening should be good, too.

The Weekly Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance and this week's roundup are both certified 100% malarkey-free.

Off the Kuff takes a look at how many seats the Democrats are likely to pick up in the Legislature this November.  

BossKitty at TruthHugger sees the meningitis outbreak as another nail in the coffin, driven home by the right-wing corporate oligarchy's war on regulations and existing laws. Voters who don't put 2 and 2 together about the consequences of deregulation are allowing manufacturing shortcuts to hurt all of us. Deregulation mantras are bought and paid for by corporate greed: My Profit Is Worth More Than Your Safety. Yes, the government can help people, and until Democrats in Texas remind people of that, they'll keep losing.

And from WCNews at Eye on Williamson on that topic: Democratic success in Texas is tied to voters seeing government as on their side.

Mitt Romney's slight increase in polling popularity in the wake of the first debate is most attributable to single women, who apparently allowed his economic appeals to overcome their concerns about that whole War on Women thing. PDiddie at Brains and Eggs thinks that if President Obama doesn't make his case for a better economy, he's stupid.  

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme wonders why so much of the drill baby drill energy is going out of our ports. Who's getting that energy?

Libby Shaw at Texas Kaos explains the Romney plan in terms even a child can understand, in Starving Big Bird, Children and the Poor. Check it out.

Sunday Funnies

Pictures worth a thousand

There were plenty of zingers, but the photos tell the story.

Your reaction is dependent upon your partisan bias.

My favorite:

Here are ten more captioned with actual quotes from the evening, and a hilarious (and bipartisan) set of 31 are here. One of those...

Of almost as much enjoyment was TIME's set, out earlier in the day, of Paul Ryan exercising...

...and the fun had by all with that.

No additional snark necessary.

Your debate prep for this evening

As with last week's fight between the Kenyan (sic) Assassin and the Stormin' Mormon, tonight's Biden-Ryan tilt -- one is the Boomer washing his Pontiac in the driveway, the other is Atlas shrugging and shredding a P90X workout -- you need to be prepared for all the wonky goodness that will flow forth across the Kentucky landscape... and out of your preferred broadcast source. That is, if you prefer your style as a sauce for the substance, and not as the main course.

-- Five things to watch for, from CNN, the WaPo, Politico, and the Blaze. Think Progress has twelve.

-- As with last week's debate, the major/minor parties are disinvited, so the Greens' vice-presidential nominee, Cheri Honkala, is hosting a street party down a few blocks from the small liberal arts college where Biden-Ryan is being waged, about two hours south of Cincinnatti, OH.

What: "Paul Ryan" Austerity Wagon protest with Cheri Honkala
Where: 317 W. Main Street, Danville, KY (6 blocks from Centre campus)
When: Thursday Oct. 11, 7 PM (action starts at 8 PM sharp)

 Join Green Party VP candidate Cheri Honkala to Occupy the Vice Presidential Debate at Centre College in Danville, Kentucky on Thursday, October 11!

Occupy activists around Kentucky and Southern Ohio are organizing some really fun street theatre highlighting Paul Ryan's devastating budget plan that would redistribute wealth upward from the poor and middle class to the wealthy. We aren't counting on Joe Biden or the debate's pre-approved moderator and format, tightly regulated by both campaigns, to bring up that issue -- or any of the other issues we really want to hear more about.

-- Judge Jim Gray, the Libertarian vice-presidential candidate, is just going to Hang Out on Google.

-- Finally... the fact-checking is already under way. It will probably still be going on by the time of the second Romney-Obama debate next Tuesday.

A Republican Unicorn in Fort Bend County

Running for commissioner, and voting in two states.

A Republican precinct chairman running for a seat on the Fort Bend County Commissioner's Court has cast ballots in both Texas and Pennsylvania in the last three federal elections, official records in both states show.

Bruce J. Fleming, a Sugar Land resident running for Precinct 1 commissioner, voted in person in Sugar Land in 2006, 2008 and 2010 and by mail in each of those years in Yardley, Pa., according to election records in both states.

Fleming, who owns a home in Yardley, voted for Hillary Rodham Clinton in the 2008 presidential primary in Texas. His wife, Nancy Fleming, who is listed as a resident of Yardley, voted by mail in both places in the 2010 general election, records show.

"The less said is better," Bruce Fleming said when contacted by phone late Tuesday afternoon. "Until we can determine the situation, I can't really comment."

Like the Chupacabra, it turns out that voter fraud does exist (at the discovered rate of less than once per year since 2000, nationwide) and it's being committed by the people doing the most complaining about it.

Doesn't that True the Vote queen Catherine Englebrecht live in Fort Bend County? Why yes she does, and in this very precinct. From the source that first broke this story -- and got the Traditional Media right on it -- here's Juanita Jean from the WMDBS (I am sure she picked those words on purpose like that).

Cathy Engelbretch did not sniff out voter fraud when it was right under her nose smelling like a goat with a three day old catfish on its back.  And here’s how I know that.

You have to read it all. KPRC even managed coverage.

"To be honest with you, the tip was Mr. Fleming had bragged to Rick Miller that he had voted twice against Barack Obama," said Don Bankston of the Texas State Democratic Party.

(It should be noted here that Bankston is Juanita Jean's husband. And I love 'em both for the work they do down there in the belly of the GOP beast.)

Voter ID legislation doesn't prevent this kind of voter fraud, you see. Forget that requiring photo IDs at the polling place is even meant to prevent voter fraud anyway.

What this exposes, again, is the entire fraud of Republicans generally. They cannot govern seriously, but only by an ideology so warped that they themselves are twisted up by it. They think by committing this second-degree felony that they're simply evening things out for their team.

That is literally what they think.

If you vote for any Republican over the next few weeks, then you get what you deserve.

Those swinging single women

Wading into an explosive social issue, Republican Mitt Romney on Tuesday said he would not pursue any abortion-related legislation if elected president.

"There's no legislation with regards to abortion that I'm familiar with that would become part of my agenda," he told the Des Moines Register in an interview posted on the newspaper's website.

That sounds a little slippery on the face of it; "that I'm familiar with".

Romney's statement to the newspaper represents an apparent shift on a topic Obama's campaign has tried to use against him, particularly with female voters. Soon after the comments were posted on the Register's website, the president's campaign pounced.

"We know the truth about where he stands on a woman's right to choose: He's said he'd be delighted to sign a bill banning all abortions, and called Roe v. Wade 'one of the darkest moments in Supreme Court history,' while pledging to appoint Supreme Court justices who will overturn it. Women simply can't trust him," Obama spokeswoman Lis Smith said.

As recently as a presidential debate in January, Romney said the Supreme Court should overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling that legalized abortion across the nation.

My feeling here is that Romney has slid too much to the left -- aka closer to the center -- for this to be of help to his cause. Update: It only took the campaign a couple of hours to walk that back.

Then again, he may just be divining the polling.

(Democratic pollster Stan) Greenberg told (the Washington Post's Greg Sargent) in an interview that his new research persuaded him that Mitt Romney beat Obama in the debate for a simple reason. Unmarried women — a critical piece of Obama’s coalition — did not hear Obama telling him how they would make their lives better. By contrast, they did hear Romney telling them he’d improve their lives. 

Recall that in yesterday's post, this erosion of support from women was mentioned.

Romney, however, succeeded in communicating with unmarried women, Greenberg says, by prefacing talk of his five point plan with an extended discussion of the economic strain of middle-income Americans — which Greenberg calls an effective “set up that gave his details meaning.”

“When Romney talked about what he is going to do for the middle class, his five point plan, they were very responsive,” Greenberg says. “The president had a lot of detail but didn’t have the set up in values.”

Unmarried women are a key piece of the “rising American electorate,” which includes young voters and minorities and propelled Obama's 2008 victory. “The key issues for them are the suite of economic issues around rebuilding the middle class,” Page Gardner, the president of Women’s Voices Women Vote, who commissioned Greenberg’s research, says. “They are the most stressed and stretched.”

Greenberg’s research also included a national survey, and focus groups in Ohio and Virginia, that suggest a course correction for Obama. The national survey found that before the debate, Obama was doing extremely well among unmarried women, beating Romney among them by 63-24. He held a 19 point edge among them on who would do better on “issues important to you.” 

So Mitt's reaching out with another line to the constituency that will apparently decide 2012: unmarried females in a handful of swing states.

I'd like to say here that I weep for the future for a segment of the electorate that appears to have overlooked the whole War on Women thing, but it just doesn't come as a big enough surprise.

Women -- single women, with children or without, irrespective of nationality -- have had it worse in this economy than anybody. I can't blame them one little bit for reaching for any lifeline thrown near them.

It's a shame they aren't aware of the two female candidates running on a New Deal platform, isn't it?

If Obama -- or more immediately, Joe Biden -- doesn't mention 47% in the next debate, the Democrats could succeed in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

I think they can hold on, but they need to do more than just try to run out the clock. As they say in auto racing: it's the last lap of the Daytona 500; you don't take your foot off the gas.

(Maybe I should look for less sports-related macho analogies.)

OK Obama supporters, you can panic now.

The Great and Powerful Kos has spoken.

Public Policy Polling for Daily Kos & SEIU. 10/4-7. Likely voters. MoE ±2.72% (9/27-30 results)

The candidates for President are Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Mitt Romney. If the election was today, who would you vote for?

  Obama 47 (49)
Romney 49 (45)

That's a pretty disastrous six-point net swing in just a week, and the first time we've ever had Romney in the lead. It is inline with all other national polling showing Romney making gains in the wake of his debate performance last week.

Both the Gallup and Rasmussen trackers saw their Romney bounce evaporate on Sunday. In this poll, 75 percent of the sample was gathered on Thursday and Friday, at the height of Romney's bounce. This is because PPP does call-backs: It identifies a random range of numbers and begins calling them on Thursday. If they get no answer, they keep trying the same numbers on subsequent days until they get the required number of responses (we ask for at least 1,000). This avoids the old tropes about young liberals being out partying on Friday nights, while conservatives are at church on Sunday mornings, etc.

[...]

So where did Romney gain? Among women, Obama went from a 15-point lead to a slimmer 51-45 edge. Meanwhile, Romney went from winning independents 44-41 to winning them 48-42. And just like the Ipsos poll showed last week, Romney further consolidated his base. They went from supporting him 85-13 last week, to 87-11 this week while Obama lost some Democrats, going from 88-9 last week, to 87-11 this week.

Several other polls, Pew chief among them, saw a big increase in the number of respondents self-identifying as Republicans—a sign of increased intensity on that side of the aisle. Our poll confirms that intensity boost. Last week, 65 percent of conservatives were "very excited" about voting this year. This week, it's 74 percent. That's a significant shift. Liberals also gained, but only marginally so, from 68 to 70 percent.

Clearly, none of this is irreversible, and it'll bear watching the daily trackers to see if Romney continues to fade or not. And obviously, next week's numbers will further clarify the shape of the race.

Regardless, it shows that Obama's debate performance was an epic blunder (my emphasis). Romney gave his partisans a reason to get excited about him and they've responded. It should come as no surprise that people like to fight for people who are fighting for them.

Obama's also been looking at the polls, and underscores the fear factor to his partisans.

President Barack Obama is telling supporters that with one month to go, it is time for them to get "almost obsessive."

Speaking to donors at a $20,000-per-ticket dinner in San Francisco, Obama said, quote, "I very much intend to win this election."

But he says it will require supporters to mobilize every resource they can think of to help him. He encourages those who given him cash to do more by sending emails, making phone calls, and reaching out to cousins or uncles or friends in the battleground states that will decide the election.

Says Obama, quote: "You've got to make sure that we bring this home." 

The two excerpts above encapsulate so much of what has gone wrong with our political process that it's difficult for me to find a place to start to break it down. No joke; it's an Aegean stables-like task. (I'm not even going to mention Mitt Romney, either.)

Indeed Obama had a shitty debate, but to consider that his performance actually changed so many peoples' minds is a rather pathetic take on the electorate. A week ago -- yes, just a week ago -- the race was virtually concluded. The momentum was solidly blue, and was spreading downballot rapidly. I haven't looked to see what the polls reveal about Senate or Congressional races yet, but suffice it to say that something similar is probably occurring.

You may recall that I have a low opinion of opinion polling. That is still the case. Beating my ownself out of the Crips gang also helps in processing the wilting of Team Bleu fortunes with the first frost.

Democratic White House prospects now rest in the capable hands of Joe Biden in his debate with Paul Ryan Thursday night. That should still be fun.

But partisan Dems, and particularly those in Texas, suddenly have a lot to be worried about.

The focus will crystallize after today; it's the last day to register to vote in this election in Texas, so the conversation and the efforts will turn to GOTV. And to enlisting Texans to call swing state voters, as if so much of that volunteer effort hasn't already been siphoned off. With fully 50% of the potential American electorate officially uncoupled from having a say -- as much by their own choice as the deadline -- the audience for the message just divided in half.

Texans are both ATM and ground infantry recruitment headquarters again for Obama, and for close Senate contests in places like Massachusetts and Wisconsin... but not here. With tight and winnable races in the Texas House and state Senate, resources must be expended to save ground, not expand it any longer. Another strategy shift in the midst of happening, as the state poll numbers continue to be gathered.

Unless the momentum can be regained by the Democrats, the tides appear to have reversed themselves, with the Red coming in and the Blue going out.

This would have bothered me a lot more in years past.

We can hope that fear is a good motivator for Democratic voters, at least. It seems to work better on the Republican lizard brain, but so does rabid enthusiasm on their hive mind. And now they have it. They probably won't let go of it again over the course of the next month.

It's a cryin' ass shame either way for Texas Dems, though. They will have to pour themselves out block-walking, phone-calling, lit-dropping and push-carding just to preserve some gains that were in the bank last week.

All because Obama mailed it in on his anniversary.

My own enthusiasm for Obama -- and it never was a lot -- began to deflate early on when he refused to fight for his own healthcare program, and then more so as he declined to fight back against the worst of the Republican attacks on him. Here I might pile on with Guantanamo, NDAA, drone assassinations of Afghani and Pakistani civilians as well as American citizens, the mishandling of both the economic crisis as well as the subsequent stimulus, and most recently our environment locally and our climate globally.

But I will save elaborating on these reasons for not backing the president in 2012 for later.

Even some of the Kossacks commenting on that thread get it, though, this one in particular (poor syntax notwithstanding).

When you embrace proto Republican ideas do not be surprised when voters look favorably on Republican ideas that are so close to your own. If Republicans are good enough for Obama to want to make nice with then why should undecideds not take them seriously too. We may lose this election because of the President's insistence on bipartisanship and the failure to treat the base well.

The Greens are not going to get anywhere near what Nader got in 2000. The Greens will not be to blame here. Rather the administration's failure along with the media's to properly label the Tea Party and its billionaire benefactors as the danger to the country that they represent. And the lack of support for the labor movement and the embrace of neoliberal economic policy.

The administration's handling of the banking crisis was a political disaster. It alienated voted (sic) while only benefiting the wealthy. What should have been an era of aggressive banking reform was instead an era of bankers getting wealthier.

There's a Houston-area meetup of Daily Kosians this weekend. Some I already know offline; some are activists, some are clicktivists, all are dyed-in-the-wool Democrats. It's an opportunity to see how well-received a person like me is in that company.

There are a lot of votes in the can already, however, and none of what's happening right now has changed my ballot at all. I will still vote for several Democrats, all the Greens I can, and a few Libertarians where they are the only one running against a Republican. But then again, I'm not a low-information voter, either.

And I doubt that you are as well. But the election doesn't turn on people like us... except for down the ballot. That's especially the case here in the Great State.

Update: Nate Silver, as good at the game as any, says "don't worry". Plenty of historical precedent for one good debate being fairly meaningless in the overall scheme. And the Irish betting service I follow -- always hilarious -- declares in this morning's e-mail...

With less than a month to go before America goes to the polls Paddy Power, Europe’s largest betting company, can report that close to 3 times more money has been staked on President Barack Obama than his election rival Mitt Romney.

The Irish betting house has seen only 25.5% of money staked on their next President betting line placed on Romney since he was formally named as the Republican candidate on August 30th while 74.5% of the dough has been placed on Obama in the same period.

Meanwhile, the former Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, has seen his odds of winning the presidential race improve significantly from 9/2 to 9/4 since his powerful display in the first debate but still trails Barack Obama who remains the favourite to win the election at 1/3.

 A spokesperson for Paddy Power said “Obama looked to be home and dry in our customers’ eyes about two weeks ago, however there’s been a recent surge in support for Romney which would suggest that Obama might be in a Mitt of trouble.”

Update II: Nobody does 'stop freaking out' better than Wonkette (NSFW due to language).

The Weekly Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance has Big Bird's back as it brings you this week's roundup.
  
BossKitty at TruthHugger was in a hurry and only posted one article. Thanks to underfunded oversight and a broken Congress, the state of the Veterans Administration is disgusting: VA System Failure, Blame Robot Congress.

Off the Kuff deconstructed a truly crappy poll that was nonetheless accepted uncritically by the media.  

WCNews at Eye on Williamson shows us that one of the problems with our elections is who doesn't show up to vote: Getting non-voters to the polls.

Green presidential candidate Jill Stein's Texas swing wrapped up last Sunday in Houston with a visit to the Emile Street Community Farm, a fundraiser at a Montrose-area environmental showcase home, and another appearance on KPFT Pacifica radio. PDiddie at Brains and Eggs has pictures.

Neil at Texas Liberal also went to a campaign appearance of Stein's.

Jill Stein wraps up Texas swing today

This afternoon, back in Houston, at the Emile Street Farm, and then the environmental showcase home of Lee and Hardy Loe. And tonight on KPFT again.

Your last chance in Houston to see and speak with a presidential candidate who is actually for the 99%... without having to pay thousands of dollars to do so. And several of the Greens on the Harris County ballot also.

Here's more photos from the past few days.

Sunday No Big Bird Funnies

Brainy Endorsements: Vince Ryan

Vince Ryan is running for re-election to Harris County attorney. He was elected in 2008's Obama wave and faces Republican Bob Talton to return to office. If you don't count Wayne Dolcefino as political opposition, that is.

The Chron beat me to this endorsement (as slow as they are, I am disappointed I let that happen) and while gathering plaudits for Ryan's work and experience, drops in this intriguing paragraph.

We have noted, however, that partisanship has on occasion been taken to unhelpful lengths in blogs written by high-profile members of Ryan's team. These reflect on the county attorney himself and do not always promote civil and respectful relations with the many elected Republican officials at the county.

I can't find what they refer to here. Anyone?

GOP Godfather Gary Polland, something weird calling itself Texas Patriot Statesman, and Big Jolly have made the usual partisan appeals, but anything critical of Talton and supportive of the Ryan campaign "from high-profile members" of his team eludes my searches.

And Charles Kuffner -- from his continuing series of paeans on the inexorable power of money to get elected -- queried his readers in the spring about the rift among Republicans in the primary. No one appears to have answered his question.

I'll give that a whirl, without being able to confirm some of my supposition.

Talton earned the nickname "Crazy Bob" when he was in the state legislature. Talton, in fact, was so crazy that he bucked Tom Craddick -- hard and often -- when he was in the statehouse, which at the time was virtually a suicidal act. Jolly alludes to this in the link above (at the end).

Talton kamikaze style was so feared, in fact, that no less than Representatives Garnet Coleman and Jessica Farrar, state Senators Mario Gallegos and Rodney Ellis, former Harris County Commissioner Sylvia Garcia, former state representatives Scott Hochberg and Rick Noriega, all refused to support the Democrat that ran against Talton in 2006, Janette Sexton. It's worth excerpting a small bit...

(S)everal Houston-area Democratic legislators made promises of help of all kinds, but when she called to take up those offers, her calls went unanswered and unreturned. There were some people who leveled with Padilla-Sexton: state representative Garnet Coleman told her that he and his colleagues had discussed her race and come to the conclusion that they could not assist her because “they had to work with Bob Talton on regional issues”. (I contacted Phillip Martin, Coleman’s chief of staff, for a response but my queries went unanswered.) Mostly she got the cold shoulder: Rep. Jessica Farrar was effusive in her initial offers of assistance, but declined to return phone messages when the time came to help. Padilla-Sexton also reached out to Harris County commissioner Sylvia Garcia (mentoring), Sen. Rodney Ellis (about an air quality question), Rep. Scott Hochberg (regarding state education funding), Sen. Mario Gallegos (for adding credibility to her campaign) and Rep. Rick Noriega (for general help and direction), but none of those people returned her calls, either.

There were obviously conversations between Craddick's many enemies, Republicans among them, in 2006 about how to take him down. This may have earned Talton the respect so many Democrats showed him, as well as some enmity from conservatives of a Craddick-loving stripe. After all, there were over a dozen Texas House Democrats lining up behind the former Speaker in January 2007. Given that, how could any conservative fall out of formation and not be accused of heresy?

What this tells me -- and what it should tell you -- is that Democrats are such a beaten-down minority that they don't hesitate to throw one of their own under the bus if they can find a Republican to make a deal with. That's classic battered-spouse syndrome, folks. But the more important question is: what's the difference between the two parties, again?

I have a post prepared that is going to talk more about these local concession-tenderers, as John Behrman has referred to them. I may run it before Election Day... if I want to burn the last bridge between me and the Harris County Democratic Party. Suffice it for now to say that this is precisely where the roots of the problem for Democrats are dug in: with the oligarchs who are collecting markers, waiting for their next electoral opportunity.

But all of that is a digression from the low-quality opponent Vince Ryan has, as well as from the fine work he has done. Let's get Ryan back downtown to keep working as a check and balance against the worst of the Republicans on Harris County's Commissioners Court.

Brainy Endorsements so far include the following...

Nile Copeland for the First Court of Appeals
Alfred and GC Molison for HD 131 and SBOE, respectively
Henry Cooper for HD 148
Keith Hampton for Presiding Judge, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Barbara Gardner for the Fourteenth Court of Appeals
Don Cook for Congress, 22nd District
Max Martin for Congress, 36th District
Remington Alessi for Harris County Sheriff
David Courtney for Texas Senate, District 17
Ann Harris Bennett for Harris County Tax Assessor/Collector
Ann Johnson for HD-134
Mike Engelhart, Larry Weiman, and Al Bennett for the Harris County bench
Mark Roberts for Congress, 2nd District
David Collins for United States Senate

Jill Stein and Kingwood's Students for Democratic Socialism

Three hundred people, not all of them students at Lone Star College, and not all the students present as required for curriculum. If I hadn't taken the pictures myself, I never would have thought it happened, either.

Despite reading Stace and Egberto all these years, I had no idea there was such a thriving nest of communist pit vipers in Kingwood.

This is exactly what conservatives have been warning us about for years: damn liberal professors corrupting the minds of our impressionable young people.

One of those who sponsors the group and hosted the event indicated to me that when they polled 900 students four years ago, the campus went 61-39... for McCain. So maybe Republicans don't have so much to worry about after all.

Still, at a time when the Harris County Green Party can barely get fifty at a monthly general meeting, and the leverage of teachers over students notwithstanding, 300 people on an NFL Thursday night is, well... unbelievable.

Dr. Stein touched on everything her presidential campaign is about for the hour she spoke, and answered questions for another thirty minutes, before being greeted by about 40-50 of the attendees for face time and photos. Earlier in the day it was the same phenomenon at U of H: students thronged around her in rotating groups of twenty to thirty, listening raptly and snapping pics on their cellphones. A few I spoke to as I distributed lit knew who she was, and were delighted to see her on campus.

I had one black student tell me he made a mistake when he voted for Obama in 2008 (!).

I haven't spent much time on college campuses in the past few years, so I'm sore from all the walking and was miserable in the heat and humidity for what little I did yesterday. My shin splints fired up and I went hypoglycemic, necessitating a sit-down for about fifteen minutes with a sandwich and ice tea while others did the work.

But this morning, I'm still agog at what the potential is for a progressive (not necessarily blue, although by extension they will benefit) movement in Texas.


Jill Stein takes a "Toxic Tour" of the Houston Ship Channel and East End this morning, followed by a press conference at 11 at Tranquility Park, with Juan Parras of t.e.j.a.s and Tar Sands Blockade activist Ben Franklin, who was choked, pepper-sprayed, Tasered, and then arrested in east Texas last week. Yesterday, actress Daryl Hannah was also arrested, as was a Wood County great-grandmother, charged with trespassing... on her own property.

Finally, another public speaking event at St. Stephens in the Montrose at 7 p.m. wraps the Stein campaign's day. Tomorrow: San Antonio. See the full schedule of Texas appearances here.

More debate reaction

It's not nearly as serious as what you have been hearing.

-- Conan O'Brien, too.

-- Chris Matthews is still mad about Obama's debate performance.

-- One debate in the can, and one swing state voter -- a Republican-leaning Milennial working on her MBA, completely turned off by the GOP's war on women -- remains undecided.

And Nick Anderson re-clarifies how relevant debate spin is to reality.

Jiill Stein's Houston itinerary: Thursday October 4

As previously advanced, Green Party candidate Jill Stein brings her campaign for President of the United States to Houston today and tomorrow. The public is invited to attend the the morning and evening events listed.

At 11:30 am, after arriving in Houston earlier, Stein will appear at the main campus of the University of Houston (4800 Calhoun Road, 77004), specifically the  University Center Satellite food court, to meet and greet with Green Party supporters, progressive activists, students, faculty, staff, and local media.

This is your best chance to speak -- maybe have your photo taken -- with a 2012 presidential candidate... and not have to pay $10,000 for the privilege.

Dr. Stein at U of H this afternoon.

At 1:30 pm, Stein will join the first of two poly-sci classes at U of H for a discussion and Q&A.

Then at 3:00 pm, Stein will be in the KPFT studios, and on the air live, with Leo Gold, host of The New Capital Show.

By all indications at this time, Stein's 7:00 pm public speaking engagement at Lone Star College -- Kingwood (20000 Kingwood Drive, Kingwood 77339), could be the most popular event on the schedule. Stein will speak at the Student Conference Center, and will be available to Houston media before and after.

Stein will also be in Houston Friday and Sunday, with a day trip to San Antonio in-between. The full schedule is here, and also at the Stein for President website.

Not quite up to the hype.

Not exactly Ali-Frazier.

Not even "The Kenyan Assassin" versus "The Stormin' Mormon".

More like "See Mitt. See Mitt act like a dick."

Faced with several recent polls showing Romney falling behind, the GOP candidate may have bought himself some added time after Wednesday's debate, where he appeared on the offensive against Obama. Romney's answers to questions from the moderator, Jim Lehrer of PBS Newshour, who played a subdued role over the course of the evening, were crisp and appeared well-rehearsed. His responses included as many specifics as the limited time would allow, and Romney seemed to hit his marks in a way Obama was not able to.

The headline of that article called Obama 'subdued', and the excerpt says it was Lehrer who was somnambulant. The truth: Obama got carpet-bombed by the frenetic challenger, and the moderator lost control right from the jump.

Romney -- who, despite what they say about Mormons and caffeine, obviously had too many Red Bulls in the green room -- repeatedly interrupted both his debate opponent and the mod, crapped on the format by taking the last word every single time, and generally acted like he owned the debate hall.

Lehrer indicated, after Romney finally completed answering the first question, that they were already fifteen minutes behind. Mitt had something to prove last night but 'jackass' probably wasn't what he was hoping for. He went for it anyway. I'm sure TeaBaggers and Bibi Netanyahu are thrilled about Mitt's belligerence, but I can't see that it sways many undecided voters.

Romney was due for a rebound after the past couple of months, and this is probably it. Things could narrow in the swing states. Republicans should be very enthused.

Does this performance change much? Did Lloyd Bentsen using Dan Quayle as a mop alter the trajectory in 1988? On the other hand, when Reagan asked the question in 1980, he changed the game.

Debates as turning points historically appear to be attributable to gaffes, like Richard Nixon's flopsweat in 1960, Gerald Ford's view of Polish independence in 1976, or Bush the Elder checking his watch in 1992. Obama didn't make any... and he won't. But as with four years ago, his cool detachment serves him poorly in this venue. The president is fencing; Romney is playing hockey, slamming Obama into the boards up and down the ice.

Here's another blast from the past: When Mike Dukakis calmly replied to a hyperbolic question from CNN's Bernie Shaw about his wife's theoretical rape and murder, he was seen as emotionally devoid, i.e., weak. But all that really did that was feed in to a well-established campaign season narrative about Dukakis.

The 2012 narrative is that Mitt is disorganized, dishonest, waffly, and robotic. What he did well last night is dispel two or three of those. ('Dishonest' wasn't one of them.)

And I generally prefer my candidates with a little fight in 'em, and Obama just does not have that. Which is fine, because I'd rather not have a hothead with his finger on the button. That's why I watched the Democracy Now! debate, where Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson were spliced live into the the conversation between Obama and Romney: Stein and Anderson both are passionate about the issues without being manic or hostile.

At least this faceoff wasn't as cringe-inducing as Sadler-Cruz. Here's some additional perspective...

"The challenger, indeed": 

Republican Mitt Romney was fiery and having fun. President Barack Obama came off as the professor without much pop.

And while Democrats grudgingly conceded that Romney did well in Wednesday's debate, what matters is whether he changed the dynamic of a race that he appeared to be losing.

[...]

By that measure, Romney may not have changed the game, but he sure played it well. Obama avoided any gaffes but looked surprisingly lackluster at times.

"Will it be enough?":

After several difficult weeks, Republican Mitt Romney found his footing on Wednesday night in a strong debate performance against Democratic President Barack Obama. The question is whether it is too late to make a difference.

Romney could see a burst of fundraising, new interest from undecided voters and a wave of support from his fellow Republicans after he appeared to have emerged as a clear victor in his first face-to-face confrontation with Obama. Romney likely will benefit from favorable news coverage as well.

Still, with the November 6 election little more than a month away, Romney is running out of time to seize the lead.

Voting has begun in some form or another in 35 states, and 6 percent of those have already cast their ballots, according to a Reuters/IPSOS poll released on Wednesday.

And while debates are among the most memorable events of any presidential campaign, there is little evidence that they can change the outcome of an election.

Obama may have underwhelmed, but he avoided the sort of disastrous performance that can cause backers to reassess their support.

"Voters' reaction":

Mitt Romney seemed to be on the ball, more so than President Obama, in Wednesday night's kickoff of the 2012 presidential debate series. If you are keeping score, it's Mitt Romney: 1, President Obama, 0. 

Ultimately, I feel maybe President Obama played it too safe. I felt Obama wanted to speak more about Romney's platform than persuade the public of his own ideas. 

-- D. Emile Delaney, Austin, Texas

Romney's lack of details when it comes to health insurance and reducing the deficit is troubling. The most specific he got was saying that he would "eliminate all programs based on this test, if they don't pass it -- Is the program so critical it's worth borrowing money from China to pay for it. And if not, I'll get rid of it." 

One of those programs is PBS; Romney said he loved Big Bird and would be sorry to see him go. Well, if Romney thinks that Sesame Street is PBS's sole contribution to society, then he really is out of touch with America. 

-- Lisa Zadok, San Jose, Calif.

Romney's performance was a textbook example of how one behaves in a debate. He was cheerful, but forceful, in command of his facts and, above all, relentless. Obama, on the other hand, seemed nervous and ill at ease, looking on more than one occasion at his shoes. He clearly did not want to be there and did not enjoy the experience. 

-- Mark Whittington, Houston

Romney stated during the debate that the role of the federal government is to "to uphold the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence." Doesn't that include my right to believe in my own God(s), and not be forced to worship the "same God" he spoke of? Apparently not as far as Romney is concerned, as long as Congress continues to "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." My vote is now firmly set on Obama, who at the very least hasn't presumed to tell me what my religious beliefs are or should be. 

-- Lori May, Denver

The best one of those was this one (my emphasis). 

 

I believe Romney performed better, but this debate was a loss for both parties, and our nation, because it concentrated mainly on the economy and health care, but made no mention of civil liberties. Obama is fighting to keep [controversial NDAA provisions]. Why not attack him on that domestic policy issue? Because the Republicans are for it, too. Democrats and Republicans are OK with it.

In my state, we have seven candidates for president. Only two of these people are allowed to debate. It's my belief that this is bad for freedom. And I will look into the other candidates and vote for one of them. 

-- David Garrett Jr., Knoxville, Tenn.

Yep. Me too.

Update: Prairie Weather assembled the fact-checks of Romney's blither-blather. He failed.

Faceoff Funnies

Disgraceful

In what may be a preview of Wednesday night's Obama-Romney scrum, Paul Sadler (R-Lite) and Ted Cruz (R-Batshit) flung poop at each other more furiously than any cage of angry monkeys ever has. Look what Harvey Kronberg wrote.

HK: IN FEISTY DEBATE, CRUZ IGNORES SADLER CHALLENGE AND CHOOSES NOT TO REPUDIATE BIRTHERS OR PUBLICLY COMMIT TO CORNYN FOR LEADERSHIP 

GOP candidate says Democrat is a liberal, pro-gay marriage, anti-Second Amendment and proud supporter of a Texas personal income tax 

The mission of the two Senate candidate’s in this evening’s Belo debate could not have been more different.

For the underfunded, largely unknown Democrat Paul Sadler the debate was about registering on the Richter scale, marginalizing Ted Cruz as an ideologue and a radical while raising questions that would follow the front runner in the weeks to come.

 For Ted Cruz, the mission was to deliver enough red meat to invigorate the state’s anti-Obama majority that every poll to date suggests is unshakeable in Texas and stay on message enough to keep his activist base engaged.

We have praised the format before – a virtual free for all in which neither one minute sound bites nor never-ending filibusters are tolerated.

The winner of the debate is obviously in the eye of the beholder.

The Texas Tribune was more temperate.

More often, it was Sadler furiously trying to pin down Cruz on a single yes-or-no question such as whether Cruz believed Obama was a Christian or was born in the Untied States. Sadler would repeatedly cut Cruz off mid-sentence if Cruz didn't begin his response with "yes" or "no." Each time, Cruz survived the interrogation without giving Sadler the information that he wanted. (When pressed by reporters afterward, Cruz refused to say his views on Obama’s religion or place of birth and said he was focused on "the issues.")

The exchanges often veered wildly off topic, prompting WFAA news reporter Brad Watson and Dallas Morning News reporter Gromer Jeffers Jr. to push the candidates back on track. Questions on illegal immigration and health care turned into arguments about whether Sadler supports the Second Amendment or whom Cruz planned to back for majority whip in the U.S. Senate. Cruz accused Sadler of “hectoring.” Sadler accused Cruz of “lecturing.”

Here's the final exchange of the hour between the two combatants.

SADLER: I had the responsibility of looking at the tax system of Texas, something you wouldn’t know anything about because you’ve never served in the Legislature, you’ve never had the responsibility of putting together a school finance program to pay for our children’s education, to fund education across this state. I did a review of every single tax available. … That’s our responsibility. You wouldn’t know anything about that. But what you don’t do is do your job as a legislator worried about some troll who will come along 10 years later or 20 years later and try to run a campaign against you.

CRUZ: I’m sorry you believe I’m a troll.

SADLER: When you lie over and over again, there’s nothing else to suggest.

CRUZ: I’m sorry, Mr. Sadler, you believe I’m a troll.

SADLER: I think you lie, Ted.
 
CRUZ: I’m sorry you attack me personally and impugn my character. I do not intend to reciprocate.

This is just pathetic. I have to believe that if the Libertarian  -- John Jay Myers --  and the Green -- David Collins -- had been included, this wouldn't have gotten so far out of hand.

Texas, and Texans, deserve so much better than this.

But Sadler, faced with the most recent polling that shows him outgunned more than 2-1, had to sling mud like it was hash in a greasy spoon. All Cruz had to do was duck.

Yes, I'm afraid this could be a precursor of what we might expect to see from Mitt Romney tomorrow evening, after all the punishment he has taken from his own side, and in the face of his own collapsed numbers (everywhere except good ol' Texas, of course).

I just don't think I can sit through another display like this one, though.

Update: It's worth noting that Charles Kuffner has a very low opinion of the Texas Lyceum poll linked above, and unwinds that here. I still think Sadler's over/under is 42%.

Jill Stein Texas Tour updates

You may have already seen my earlier post announcing the trip, and Neil Aquino's post of Sunday's press release. The following will also go out to local and statewide media later today, but because you're special, you get to read it here first. New itinerary items are in bold.

Thursday Oct. 4, 2012 (Houston)

11:00 am   Arrival, Houston Hobby airport

11:30 am   University of Houston (4800 Calhoun Road, 77004), University Center Satellite food court: meet-and-greet with students, faculty, and staff. Media availability.

1:30 pm    University of Houston: classroom discussions

3:00 pm    On air appearance, KPFT 90.1 FM: The New Capital Show with Leo Gold

7:00 pm    Public speaking engagement: Lone Star College -- Kingwood (20000 Kingwood Drive, Kingwood 77339), Student Conference Center. Media availability.
   
Friday, October 5 (Houston)
               
9:00 am    "Toxic Tour" (also here), led by Juan Parras of t.e.j.a.s. Media welcome (but no availability to the candidate, as tour time is limited). Departure location and tour stops to be determined.

11:00 am   Tranquility Park (400 Rusk Street), Houston: press conference with Parras and Benjamin Franklin, who was choked, pepper-sprayed, and tasered as part of the confrontation with police officers at the Tar Sands Blockade (a citizen action organized to halt the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, ongoing in Wood County, Texas). Media availability.

1:00 pm    Texas Southern University (3100 Cleburne Street, 77004), classroom discussion (to be confirmed).
    
7:00 pm    Public speaking engagement, Saint Stephens Episcopal Church (1805 West Alabama Street, 77098), Precor Hall. Media availability.

Saturday, October 6 (San Antonio)

2:00 pm  Public speaking engagement, University of Texas -San Antonio, (specific location TBA), Students United for Socioeconomic Justice. Media availability.

7:00 pm   Fundraising event, Bexar County Green Party (276 Natalen, 78209).

Sunday, October 7 (Houston)

12:00 pm The Last Organic Outpost's Emile Street Community Farm (711 N. Emile St., near Gunter St.). Stein will tour the sustainable urban agricultural facility (background here). Limited media availability.

2:00 pm   Fundraising event: home of Lee and Hardy Loe (1844 Kipling, 77098).

9:00 pm   On air appearance, KPFT 90.1 FM:  Self Determination with Obidike Kamau. Stein will be on for the full hour.

Media may contact the Stein campaign at media@JillStein.org to schedule an interview. There may be more additions/subtractions to Stein's schedule as the campaign stops draw closer. Check back here for the very latest.

The Weekly "Ah, Fall" Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance reminds you that the deadline to register for the election is October 9 as it brings you this week's roundup.

Off the Kuff has a Q&A with Democratic SCOTX candidate Michelle Petty, who is running against one of the Court's least ethical members.  

BossKitty at TruthHugger wants all Texans to have all the Texas Voting Information they need, so this will stay at the top of the blog's homepage until November 6. Meanwhile, she is disgusted that our Cowardly Congress Kicks The Can Again, and is overjoyed to see more corporate manipulators exposed, in Do You Hear Me Now?

Three Wise Men forecasts the 2012 presidential and Senate elections.

With Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein scheduled to be in Houston and San Antonio from October 4-7, PDiddie at Brains and Eggs found it necessary to once again slay the persistent urban legend that Ralph Nader was responsible for Al Gore's defeat in the 2000 election.

We're facing another legislative session that will be harmful to the majority of Texans unless we act now. That's why WCNews at Eye on Williamson is pointing this out now: Here we go again.

Over at TexasKaos, Libby Shaw explains why the GOP is obsessed about voter fraud. Hint: the best way to get away with something is to accuse your opponents of it.

Neil as Texas Liberal noted that you have the right to take pictures of bridges and infrastructure and anything in plain view so long as you are not tresspassing. Neil said that business and government are teaming up to deny the basic freedom to observe and make note of the things that are around us in a so-called open society.  

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme observes that Greg Abbott, likely gubernatorial candidate, goes all Christian Taliban by promoting bible verses in school.