Mo' money in government and what we get for it

I don't know why these aggregates get so much traffic -- clicks here yesterday were ten times normal -- but if people want to read it, I suppose I'll have to write it.

Regarding campaign spending...

-- Texans outpace congressional colleagues on big donations:

Texas congressional candidates rely far more heavily on large donors than office-seekers in other states do, a Houston Chronicle analysis of federal campaign data for the 2012 election cycle found.

Three-quarters of Texas' congressional candidates collected less than 5 percent of their campaign funds from donations under $200 last year, a rate that is lower than all but nine other states.

A majority of checks from high-dollar Texas contributions went to Republicans, with just 15 percent of large donors siding with Democrats. Houston, the top city for big-dollar campaign cash, supplied 28 percent of all large donations from Texas last year. The reliance on larger contributions increases the political influence of wealthy donors, said Pete Quist, research director for the National Institute of Money in State Politics. For congressional contenders, it means a shorter path to campaign dollars.

"It's a lot easier for the candidates to just go up to these few donors and get the robust funding of their campaigns done," Quist said.

To fuel the record-setting spending of the most recent election campaign, candidates turned to a powerful minority composed of 31,385 mega-donors across the country. That wealthy stratum, including 2,700 Texans, funded nearly one-third of last year's $6 billion election in spending.

Dallas billionaire Harold Simmons, who led Texas in Super PAC spending last year, recorded donations of $25 million. He gave money to 15 candidates, including high-profile out-of-state Republicans Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., and Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla.

It's bound to be good for democracy, yeah?

-- It's still easy for incumbents to keep their seats, but it sure costs a lot more:

Over the past 40 years, it hasn't gotten any easier—or harder—to win reelection as a House incumbent. It's just gotten way more expensive.

It's no secret that there's a serious incumbent advantage in the House. (And the Senate, too, but that data are less telling because the chamber has fewer elections and fewer incumbents.) The success rate for House incumbents running for reelection has dipped below 90 percent in only nine of the 34 elections since 1946, according to data compiled by National Journal's own Norm Ornstein and posted by the Brookings Institution and American Enterprise Institute. The reelection success rate has fallen below 80 percent only once. If you're an incumbent looking to keep your job, you are almost guaranteed to win.

And that hasn't changed much, either. The share of incumbents seeking and winning reelection has hovered around the low 90s for the past four decades. In fact, the trendline, in black below, shows that the odds of an incumbent winning reelection have fallen just slightly by 0.7 percentage points, from 93.7 percent in 1974 to 93 percent in 2012.

Ninety-three percent retention. Brought to you by America's banks, pharmaceutical companies, defense contractors, and the business executives who run them. Ain't it grand?

No, really; what kind of government are we actually getting for all that cash?

-- Pentagon lobbies hard to be allowed to keep failing on military sexual assault:

How does the military keep fending off attempts to seriously change its sexual assault culture? Through the excessive deference of many lawmakers and an enormous lobbying operation, the details of which, as reported by Politico's Darren Samuelsohn and Anna Palmer, are staggering.

In recent months, the Pentagon's big goal has been to block Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand's proposal to take decisions about sexual assault and other major crimes prosecutions out of the hands of military commanders and put them in the hands of trained legal experts. The strength of that idea has the military scrambling to accept other important-but-not-strong-enough improvements to the failed anti-sexual assault efforts that have prevailed until now—and exercising its incredible advantages in lobbying Congress:

Nearly every Democratic and GOP member of the Armed Services committees has a career military officer working as a fellow—whose salary is paid by the Pentagon—to help craft legislation, unravel the department’s labyrinth of offices and sub-offices and decipher acronyms. 

“Imagine if we had bankers serving as fellows for the Financial Services Committee. Would we do that?” said Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), who has been pushing the military for years on sexual assault.

Plus there are Capitol Hill liaisons, members of the military who regularly meet with key Hill staff to make the Pentagon’s case on a variety of issues.

This doesn't count the actual defense contractor lobbyists, of course. It's a wonder a single military base has ever been closed. But shielding rapists from prosecution is obviously more serious than $400 hammers, $2000 toilets, incompetent weapons programs that can't be killed by Congress, weapons the military doesn't want that Congress keeps alive, and so on.

As you might imagine, this Catholic Church-like effort to protect the sexual criminals in the ranks means that military recruiters have to, ah, revise their pitch.

On and on we could go in this vein, but in the next post the focus will be on the police and surveillance state of the nation.

No Campaign Finance Reports Roundup

-- No campaign finance reports posted here. Ever. As written many times previously, that is a poor way -- probably the poorest -- of evaluating the quality of a political candidate. In fact it's sort of like picking a horse to bet on at the track based on the size of its owner's bank account. Or declaring which team might win the World Series or the Super Bowl strictly on the amount of the team's payroll.

I'm just not interested in the political insiders -- and those who crave access to them -- telling me what I should think about who is a better man or a woman of the people (sometimes erroneously referred to as "grassroots")  based on how much money they have raised. Not only don't I care, it actually has the opposite effect of convincing me that they care about the 99%. By all evidence of voter turnout in municipal elections, a vast majority of that 99% doesn't care too much either.

If it was in the best interest of our city, state, and nation to vote for people who proved themselves the most adept at pandering for campaign contributions, we'd have the kind of representation in Washington and Austin that we already have. The definition of insanity and all that.

If you don't think there's something wrong in a political system where money is scrutinized and evaluated as the most important thing to getting elected, then you might be part of the problem and not the solution.

There's an app for that. To fix it, I mean.

-- Will almost a million people quit their jobs when (perhaps I should say 'if') Obamacare is fully enacted?

A new study distributed by the National Bureau of Economic Research finds that somewhere between 530,000 and 940,000 Americans might quit their jobs after January 1, 2014, as they’re able to get affordable health insurance through one of the public exchanges to be set up under Obamacare. That could provide ammunition for both critics and supporters of the politically explosive law. Critics might see it as evidence that Obama’s reforms encourage idleness while contributing to a growing welfare state. But it might also be a sign that workers have more freedom to pursue meaningful work or other interests instead of sticking to one job just because of the benefits, a phenomenon economists have dubbed “employment lock.”

This is a bad thing how for corporations? It's like mass voluntary layoffs without the separation packages; why would they be upset about that?

-- Justice for Trayvon rallies in a hundred American cities this weekend; noon Saturday, at federal courthouses across the nation. "Juror B37 does not speak for us", according to four of the other five jurors. Here's the story of the Twitterer who single-handedly killed B37′s book deal. (Now that's what I call the invisible hand of the free market.)

Between the injustice served by a clearly biased set of panelists charged with evaluating the guilt of George Zimmerman and the gutting of the Voting Rights Act, I have to wonder if the Supreme Court justices who bought the argument that racism is over in America are having second thoughts about that. Perhaps the federal judges who were planning on going in to the office this Saturday have a better understanding.

-- State representative Harold Dutton (D-Houston) has filed a pro-life bill: No abortion restrictions can be implemented until the death penalty is abolished. Sounds good to me.

What I think I like best about it is how it paints pro-birth radicals right into a corner. And they won't be able to tiptoe out of it without getting blood on their shoes.

-- Big Jolly hyperbolically -- or maybe it's hyperventilatingly -- defends Dr. Mark Jones (because he can't defend himself) and Greg calmly bats that away. What's a clown got to do to get in this fight, Dave?

-- Is the tide actually turning, or might it be a storm surge signaling a hurricane? Read all about it in Texas Monthly.

Can Texas Democrats win in 2014 just by increasing the female vote?

The short answer is 'no', but let's dig a little deeper.

The above is a bar graph that Michael Li posted on his FB page a couple of days ago (by the way, he has the best public forum around on Texas politics and if you're not following him there and on Twitter then you're missing out). I responded: "So the way I read this is: women already registered to vote in Texas can easily elect Wendy Davis governor... if they will just show up at the polls and do so."

Li's response was that it isn't quite that simple. After crunching a few numbers I am forced to agree, but since he posted it to "suggest opportunity", let's explore that.

(I'm not going to post any more charts, graphs, or spreadsheets, and we already know math isn't my strongest subject, so if somebody wants to challenge my premise, I'll welcome that discussion in the comments.)

Without having access to Li's precise figures, I have to extrapolate from the bars above to determine what the potential Democratic gain might be, given some other assumptions like: "Can 10% of the registered but not voting women in the 18-24 age bracket be motivated to cast a ballot, or should a more reasonable goal be increasing  existing turnout by that percentage?" The difference in this case is 25,000 versus almost 70,000. And not all of those will be Democratic votes, of course; the split goes more red the older the demographic.

And there's got to be a lot of rounding and estimating, which clouds our analysis. I'm thinking I can still reach a more accurate conclusion than Dr. Mark Jones of Rice University, however.

So let's open with the following parameters.

-- Increasing existing turnout by a factor of 10% is perhaps the most liberal and the most conservative goal for Dems to realize. It might be greater in the younger demographics and less in the older ones, so this will be used as the average.

-- The percentage of Democratic votes in this increase should be fairly high. I don't think the Republican women (or for that matter, men) who did not vote in 2012 have much to grow on, no matter what Phylliss Schlafly says. Not in the country, not in Texas. Still, I'm going to use a conservative estimate of the potential increase for the Ds: 75% for the 18-24 and 25-34 demographics, 67% for 35-49, 60% for 50-64, and 50% for 65+.

So on that basis, what do we have?

-- In the age range from 18-24, it looks like about three-quarters of 25,000 votes, or 18,750.

-- From 25-34, 75% of 10% of almost 600,000 (we'll call it 575K) = 43,125 Democratic votes.

-- 35-49: Ten percent of 1.1 million women who voted in 2012 is 110,000 and two-thirds of that is 73,700.

-- Texas female voters from age 50-64 total over 1.3 million according to the bar graph above, but let's round down to that 1.3 figure and take 10% of it and then 60% of that. That equals 78,000 D votes.

-- Finally, in the 65+ category, half of 10% of something around 950,000 is 47,500.

18,750 + 43,125 + 73,700 + 78,000 + 47,500 = 261,075. Again, a conservative estimate of additional Democratic votes from Texas women who are already registered to vote.

In a recent article at the Texas Tribune they helpfully disclose the vote tallies by which certain Democrats lost to Republicans in recent statewide elections. Here's that excerpt.

The grim performance of Democratic candidates in Texas over the last 10 years is hard to understate. Over the previous decade, the closest Democrats have been to any of the big ticket offices were 11 points in the 2008 presidential contest (950,695 votes), 12 points in the 2002 and 2008 Senate races (540,485 votes and 948,104 votes, respectively) and 9 points in the 2006 governor’s race (406,455 votes). 

The TexTrib goes a little farther in that piece with their back-of-the-envelope calculations of what the Latino effect might be. But they reach the same conclusion as me.

Suppose that some combination of Battleground Texas, amplified mobilization and good old-fashioned political persuasion increases Hispanic turnout in the state from 48 percent to, let’s say, 60 percent (no small feat) and, further, that the Democrats maintain a nearly 3-to-1 advantage in their vote choice (based on that 71 percent figure). That would create an additional 356,560 votes — about a third of the way toward closing the 1 million vote shortfall the Democrats suffered in the 2008 election in Texas (and remember, that was on a good day). 

I prefer to look at gender demographics as opposed to ethnic ones just for the sake of simplicity. There are people with Latino surnames who are Caucasian, to use just one example. (Exhibit A: my pal Neil Aquino. Hurry up with that new blog, by the way.) But everybody is fairly identifiable as male or female.

So what we have learned here is that -- short of a massive die-off of dessicated conservatives in the next 18 months in Texas -- Democrats still have a long, long way to go. That doesn't mean they shouldn't keep pushing, of course.

The sun is rising and the tide is turning, sooner than later. The events in the state Capitol -- and the events that occurred over the weekend in Sanford, Florida -- suggest extra motivation for people who can be convinced that voting might change things for the better. Latinos should already have all the motivation they need, and represent the greatest untapped resource. But everybody who is motivated is going to have to get registered, make sure their ID is current, and then get themselves to their polling place armed with enough knowledge to make the right choices for the future of Texas.

A tall but not insurmountable order.

The Weekly Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance joins the family of Trayvon Martin in being "saddened" by the verdict in the George Zimmerman trial as it brings you this week's roundup.

Off the Kuff gives some advice on what to do now that the anti-abortion bill has passed.

Horwitz at Texpatriate explains why he is a Democrat.

WCNews at Eye on Williamson says the dream that once made America great has become a nightmare for too many: We must “make morality possible again”.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme can hardly wait to see the results of the republican War on Women in 2014. Some Blue Dogs like Eddie Lucio Jr. are already feeling a pinch.

Dr. Mark Jones of Rice University tried to take down Wendy Davis' political prospects, and PDiddie at Brains and Eggs had to take down Jones. Conservatives drinking "librul" whine still smell like vinegar.

At TexasKaos, lightseeker foresees the destruction of Texas Republican Party. Check it out: Texas Republicans - The Coming Crackup?

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

And here are some posts of interest from other Texas blogs.

Juanita eulogizes Bev Carter, Fort Bend political journalist and rabble-rouser.

Lone Star Ma deplores the gutting of the Voting Rights Act.

Jason Stanford has a personal story about why the omnibus anti-abortion bill is such a miscarriage of justice.

Equality Texas reports from the Texas GSA Network Activist Camp.

Greg Wythe shreds a recent story that claims Sen. Wendy Davis is "too liberal" to win in Texas.

Texas Vox looks at a series of new studies that focus on the destructive effects of pollution.

The Texas Green Report explains why you should care about the cost of tap water.

Concerned Citizens reminds us once again that elections have consequences.

BOR analyzes the litigation that is likely to arise from the passage of the omnibus anti-abortion bill.

Sunday Rude and Crude Funnies

Look at all those dicks in her uterus...

Greg Abbott performs a River Walk later this afternoon...

The battlefield shifts now

Just two minutes before midnight, the Texas Senate passed the controversial anti-abortion legislation, now known as House Bill 2, that has roiled crowds outside and inside the statehouse for weeks. The bill now goes to Gov. Rick Perry to be signed into law. That will likely lead to a protracted court battle over whether the measure creates an “undue burden” on women seeking abortions.

[...]

While passage of HB 2 was expected, it didn’t come easily. It took an all-night debate in which the GOP majority rejected 20 Democratic amendments and in which several protestors were ejected from gallery after outbursts. Before the final vote, a dozen senators gave impassioned speeches for and against the bill, laying bare the raw emotions of the abortion debate.

Where to now, indeed.

The day that this bill is signed by the Governor, expect there to be a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court. Given that the plaintiffs will most likely seek a temporary restraining order, it will be filed in the Western District, based in San Antonio, because that court has jurisdiction over Austin.

Noah's got much more at TexPate, but expect the decision made at this level to be appealed to the 5th Circuit. Conservatives like their chances there, but other states' bills that are similar in nature to Texas' have already been struck down. And the showdown will be with the Supremes at some point in the future, who will surely get a chance to take on (or take down) Roe v. Wade. Or maybe they will pass on that. Update: Edward Garris at Burnt Orange expands on this.

In the meantime, there must be a political cost extracted from the legislators who brought this bill into law. From Rick Perry to David Dewhurst and Dan Patrick, all the way down to the five Democrats in the House.

Symbolism we got plenty of. There's been protests, rallies, and motivation aplenty. Now we need some concrete organizing and political action. The tactics must adjust if Texas women and those who support their freedom can claim an ultimate victory, regardless of what judgment any court renders.

In a similarly revolting development from last night, Department of Public Safety officers confiscated from gallery entrants various feminine hygiene products, claiming protestors would throw them at the senators below. The irony of allowing those carrying concealed handguns to pass in unfettered was lost on them.

The Tampon Troopers also claimed they confiscated -- oops, "discovered and disposed of" --  several jars of "suspected" urine and feces, but unlike the tampons, minipads, and even diabetic medicines they purloined, there were no pictures of a single jar of anything. Hats off to the Texas Tribune for clarifying that bit of radical conservative propaganda which put the state police into totalitarian mode.

Social media blew up again as all this business went down yesterday and into the night. But once you get past the outraged Tweets and indignant Facebook posts, the real job of making the changes in Austin that will result in different legislation starts now, and there'll be a test based on the success of those efforts in November of 2014.

If you want more like last night, then I am certain you will get it from Greg Abbott and Dan Patrick and the rest of those. If you don't, there's a lot of work to be done.

More bad political science

And then again maybe it's just poor journalism. Hard to distinguish here.

More people identify themselves as pro-life than pro-choice: A Gallup poll found 50 percent of people call themselves pro-life and 41 percent pro-choice. The latter is a record low.

However, a strong majority of Americans do not want Roe v. Wade overturned: 63 percent say they would not like to see the court completely overturn Roe v. Wade; 29 percent would.

But the same Pew poll finds a plurality objects to abortion on moral grounds: 47 percent say it’s “morally wrong,” compared with 13 percent who say it’s “morally acceptable.” Twenty-seven percent say it’s not a moral issue. Nine percent say it depends on the situation.

Support for abortion rights drops dramatically after the first trimester: A Gallup poll found 61 percent of people believe abortion generally should be legal in the first three months of pregnancy while 31 percent disagree. But only 27 percent of people believe it should be legal in the second trimester and only 14 percent believe it should be legal in the third trimester. Gallup has found that pattern each time it has asked the question since 1996.

There's a lot of contradiction in there, but when you look at this bipartisan poll of Texans from last month, you see a completely different picture.

"Texans disapprove of the legislature taking up abortion bills during the special session by 80%, according to a bipartisan poll conducted from June 17-19, 2013. In addition, 63% of Texas voters think the state has enough abortion restrictions, and 71% say the legislature should be focusing on the economy and jobs. ...

74% of registered voters say that personal, private medical decisions about whether to have an abortion should be made by a woman, her family, and her doctor -- not by politicians. And the support is wide across the spectrum: 76% of independents and 61% of Republicans agreed."

Who or what to believe here?

Gallup's record in presidential polling -- a category subject to considerably less nuance than abortion -- has been slipping a lot in recent years. Pew has been more accurate. The outfit cited by Progress Texas above, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, fared best among these in 2012, according to the wizard of polling analysis, Nate Silver.

But this, written by Karen Tumulty at the LA Times 24 years ago, via HuffPolians Mark Blumenthal and Ariel Edwards-Levy, seems definitive enough with respect to polls about abortion.

"Abortion is a topic that leaves most people feeling uncomfortable and confused. Theirs is 'a conditional, complex, middle position,' says Thomas W. Smith of the University of Chicago's National Opinion Center, which has been tracking public sentiment on abortion since the early 1960s...Surveys on abortion often yield contradictory results. Ask a question one way, and a solid majority of Americans will say that abortion should remain legal. Change the wording a bit, and the same group will favor banning it. Nonetheless, from these surveys comes what both sides realize is the winning strategy in the nation's war over abortion. 'Just as the polls come out according to the way the question is asked, so will the outcome of elections depend on who is more successful in framing what the question is all about,' [Democratic pollster Harrison] Hickman says."

Time and again I've posted my opinion of public polling. I'll repeat: polls have all of the utility of a few squares of toilet paper about to be used for their intended purpose. And once utilized, experience the most rapid of diminishing marginal value. If you wanted to be less crude than me then you might say "it's a snapshot in time". Except it would be one of those Polaroid shake-its that fades fairly quickly to nearly invisible.

For the purpose of this post let's go back to the first excerpt above and note the Houston Chron's Todd Ackerman being surprised at the pro-life versus pro-choice polling results. As we already know about polls, it's all in how the question is asked. In this case it is all about how the term "pro-life" is interpreted by the pollee as well as the reader of the poll. (Very important: not defined, but translated.)

For one thing, it isn't pro-life but actually just "pro-birth", especially as Texas Republicans and those in other states have chosen to implement legislation. From 2008 to 2011 -- the years of greatest economic turmoil in the the US -- 72 percent of women who sought an abortion already had children. Which makes it more obvious that the choice women have to make turns on economic reality more than some moral judgment. And it is no stretch to say that children born into dire financial circumstances are poorly nourished, lack basic medical care, and are further punished economically now if their parent is so much as spending time around someone else who smokes marijuana.

That is simply by no accurate definition, translation, or interpretation "pro-life".

But because Republicans have lots of corporate money with which to drive this and other false messages home -- not to mention having, you know, God on their side --  they can sway the unwashed masses into believing that their definition of pro-life is to be exalted.

Besides, those libruls are just baby-killers.

If you would like to better understand the complex socio-economic and moral dilemmas women must endure, not to mention the emotional quandaries and barriers to exercising their reproductive choice, then read this.

Finishing her testimony

The afore-blogged Sarah Slamen gets the Last Word after all.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Mark Jones tries to take down Wendy Davis

And fails. As usual.

Since her filibuster on June 25, activists, politicians and pundits within and outside of Texas have been discussing a possible 2014 gubernatorial bid by state Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth. However, beyond her pivotal role in temporarily derailing a strict omnibus anti-abortion bill and her compelling life story, most Texans, let alone most Americans, know little about Davis. An analysis of her voting record on the Senate floor helps partially fill this informational lacuna, highlighting that during her tenure Davis has been one of the Texas Senate’s most liberal members.

Now you can click over and read Jones' data and interpretations for yourself, but you don't have to possess a doctorate to recognize political quackery disguised as political science. Just use Dr. Jones' own figures.

Jones asserts Wendy Davis is the 4th most liberal senator, and then charts a voting record that is all but identical to six of her colleagues. His words: "Her ideological position is statistically indistinguishable from that of the other six Democratic senators."

So if that's true, what weight is given data that makes her fourth most liberal and not one of the 6 others? By this same measurement, Jane Nelson -- yeah, that Jane Nelson -- is the 4th most conservative state senator, more so than Troy Fraser, Tommy Williams, Glenn Hegar, and Bob Estes. And every Republican in Texas is laughing out loud right now. Update II: In preparing my personal legislative scorecard at the Texas Tribune, Nelson was the Republican whose votes I agreed with the most often (a stunning 86%).

And if you have a bias hiding somewhere in the numbers that's so obvious that I can see it.... why are you even trying to hide it?

This is called cherry-picking... and then making Robitussin with the cherries instead of wine. Jones has hacked up a "too-librul" furball and needed some cough suppressant.

To be clear, I have excoriated Dr. Jones and his opinions more frequently in this space than even I had thought. Here's what I wrote two years ago when he suggested that the defeat of sanctuary cities bills in that legislative session was a "strategic victory" for Rick Perry. Jones was eventually compelled to back up and rewrite on that, and I kicked him while he was down. In searching for those I found about ten more posts eviscerating the good doctor. And when I say 'eviscerate', I mean his lower GI tract was removed and replaced with PVC pipe.

I stopped reading his dreck a while back because the sniffs I heard at the end of every sentence were just too obnoxious to endure, but I gave him another chance recently when he appeared on teevee with Khambrel Marshall and David Big Jolly Jennings. I couldn't make it to the end of the broadcast without calling my dentist to schedule a gum-scraping. I figured that would be less painful.

I am not joking; compared to Mark Jones, Marc Campos has searing political insights -- and real keen baseball knowledge, too.

Anyway, Jones buried the lede.

Paul Burka, Patricia Kilday Hart, Ross Ramsey and others have identified multiple hurdles Davis would face were she to run for governor in 2014. To those I would add one more: Davis would be competing for statewide office in what is still a very red state with the legislative voting record of a relatively liberal Texas Democrat.

Well knock me over with a feather: Texas is as red as a baboon's ass in heat and hasn't elected a statewide Democrat in a generation. And Wendy Davis is a Democrat. You don't think the past might be prologue, do you? Let's gather some data and plot a graph.

(This baloney makes almost as much sense as the TexTrib's own polls. Yeah, I've blogged about those too until I'm tired of doing so. They're so mad at me they don't link over here any more.)

Dr. Jones should have simply saved himself the trouble and just gone all Ronald Reagan "librul-librul-librul" on Sen. Davis. He could have at least updated Reagan's smear with some of Rush Limbaugh's or Ann Coulter's spew; they've both made fortunes off that 'Liberals-R-e-VILL!' schtick. But I suppose he thinks what he's doing isn't the same thing.

Actually, it is. Calling someone the "most liberal senator" was the very first argument made against both John Kerry in 2004 and Barack Obama in 2008, and Jones knows it's a dog whistle only right ears can hear. But he had to go and ruin his credibility again. 

I have a hard time believing that Rice University cannot do better than this in the poly-sci department, and that's even if they wanted someone who was the academic equivalent of Karl Rove or Frank Luntz. Mark Jones must be tenured harder than the mortar between the bricks under the ivy. I'm guessing that without something that meets the definition of moral turpitude, they're stuck with him out there for another twenty-five years or so.

And I doubt that remains a long enough time for him to see any librul get elected governor of Texas.

Update: Greg has a similar opinion of Dr. Jones (it's more courteous than mine, but still pretty harsh on his figures and his conclusions).

As dumb as bean dip

That's what Juanita said on Facebook about Jodie Laubenberg, the House sponsor of the Texas abortion restrictions legislation almost ready to be sent to the Texas Senate. More about Representative "Cleaned Out" has been previously written here and here, and Kuffner has the morning's best update on where things stand for the moment.

Just another bit of hypocrisy about Laubenberg that needs wider distribution.

Texas State Rep. Jodie Laubenberg (R), the author of the radically anti-abortion bill making its way through the Texas Legislature this week, argued for hours on Tuesday that lawmakers should support her bill because of its strong protections for a person's "pre-born life."

The bill, HB 2, responds to "the definite death to the 70,000-plus babies who have been aborted in this state," Laubenberg said during remarks on the House floor. "HB 2 focuses on both the child and the woman."

But back in 2007, she made the case against treating the unborn as people -- at least, when it comes to qualifying for health care services.

Worth repeating for emphasis: they're pre-born babies when we want to score an emotional political point, and they are not if we have to pay for their health care. Pre-born, born, or in any other condition (that defies explanation or understanding).

During a House debate on an appropriations bill that year, Laubenberg, a staunch conservative, put forward an amendment that would require expectant mothers to wait three months before they could begin receiving prenatal and perinatal care under the Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, a program that helps cover uninsured children in low-income families.

Laubenberg's amendment drew criticism from Democratic Rep. Rafael Anchia, who said the change would mean that more than 95,000 children, in utero, would be kicked out of the CHIP program. As the two sparred over whether that was true -- Anchia cited CHIP data from hospitals, Laubenberg alleged it was "misinformation" -- Anchia asked if Laubenberg recognized those in-utero babies as people.

"You do know, don't you, that these are U.S. citizens?" Anchia asked.

"But they're not born yet," Laubenberg said.

Laubenberg's response drew a look of shock from Democratic Rep. Dawnna Dukes, who could be seen standing next to Anchia during the exchange. Anchia also appeared to relish the moment as he pressed Laubenberg that she was now arguing against treating a fetus as a person. "That's the whole point, see?" Anchia said. "You have an anti-life amendment."

Laubenberg fired back that there is "no one more pro-life" in the House than her, and again said Anchia's data was wrong. Still, something he said must have rattled her because she pulled down her amendment.

"I will be back," Laubenberg said as she prepared to leave the podium. "But right now, out of consideration for the body, I will pull this amendment down."

Yep, there's video.

There just aren't appropriate words to better demonstrate all that Texas Republicans stand for -- and against -- than Rep. Laubenberg's own. What we are witnessing in our state legislature today, and over the next several days, is some of the most powerful dishonesty human beings are capable of.

I just hope people can remember it a year and a half from now.

What fighting back in Texas looks like

At the Senate committee hearings on the abortion restrictions legislation being jammed through the Legislature, a young woman's testimony -- and the response it drew from chair Jane Nelson as well as the four state troopers who dragged her away from the mic -- is today's gas on the fire that started burning two weeks ago.

That is Sarah Slamen, known on Twitter as @VictorianPrude, who also served as the campaign manager for Amy Price's Houston city council campaign in 2011. You can read the text of her remarks here (scroll down about halfway to the bottom, until you see the YouTube similar to the above). After she was removed from the hearing room -- there's also video of that -- she was interviewed at Daily Kos.

She's barely a Democrat, much like me, to some degree because so many Democrats are simply willing to be well-behaved in the face of the authoritarian fascism that is being presented in the cramped conference rooms and marbled halls of the Capitol building. And the reaction that not-so-well-behaved women receive -- and their place in history -- should not be lost on anyone. Especially Democrats.

In yesterday's post about the people not named Wendy Davis who might be the 2014 Democratic nominee for governor of Texas, the qualities that they possess are so far removed from those that Sarah Slamen owns as to be alien to each other in comparison. Nobody (except for Wendy Davis) who might stand for statewide office in 2014 is half that brave, half that bold.

It's a shame Sarah is leaving Texas for New York, as we need lots more like her in Austin. And in Washington. And not just protesting and testifying, either.

The Bayou and Politics USA with more. And with Lawrence O'Donnell the following day to finish her testimony.

Update: It is valuable to observe that with the dearth of progressive populist candidates, conservative populist ones will attempt to fill the vacuum.

“Texans feel they aren’t being heard by political insiders who wield power,” (GOP gubernatorial candidate Tom Pauken) said in a statement. “There’s a style of governance that has developed even within our own Republican party’s leadership where primary allegiance goes to those who write the big checks, and powerful insiders pick and choose what issues get taken care of in Austin.”

Hell, I just wish I could find some Democrats who could bring themselves to agree with me that having their message co-opted like this is an embarrassment.

Stand with Texas Women road show today (and also about taking stands)

Because sustaining the momentum that outrage over abortion restriction legislation provides is important.

More at the Facebook event page and Stace's place. Speakers confirmed at post time include Wendy Davis and Cecile Richards. We might get to see Sens. Leticia Van de Putte, Kirk Watson, some of the Houston contingent such as Rodney Ellis and Sylvia Garcia, and a few Texas House members prominent in the fight on their side of the Capitol, like Senfronia Thompson and Jessica Farrar (that is, if they aren't busy debating/voting on the bill).

Here I'll digress into a conversation on Facebook that began yesterday among Democratic activists about a 2014 gubernatorial campaign between Davis and Greg Abbott, and whether a race that includes a slogan such as "standing with Wendy" might be insensitive to Abbott.

I have been ridiculing the attorney general's ribald hypocrisy since at least 2006, when I helped the David Van Os campaign challenge him in the AG race that year. This is one of my favorite posts of all time, and it was written on the inauguration of the clean Republican sweep in January, 2007. I have lots and lots to blog about Abbott, and much of the source material is going to come from the archives here.

Let me just say that if there are Democrats shirking from a fight this early, then Wendy Davis might as well stay in the Senate. And if anyone find themselves in a quandary over a campaign slogan that alludes to bipedal mobility or lack thereof, then let's "Roll with Wendy" instead.

Update: Am I the only person that remembers the vicious slander leveled at Max Cleland by Saxby Chambliss? How about Tammy Duckworth? Republicans simply do not suffer from these minor league moral dilemmas.

It's hard for me to imagine anybody -- even a group of Texans as profoundly ignorant as the Tea Party -- conjuring up an ounce of sympathy for a craven opportunist like Greg Abbott, but one thing I have learned in my activist years is that anything is possible. I don't see enough votes being lost over this that cannot -- should not -- be easily replaced with the canvassing efforts Democrats have to make to win anyway.

They stand to lose many more votes if they keep looking and acting like a bunch of cringing milksops.

AMF

Socratic Gadfly has already said all that needs sayin', so I'll just look ahead to the future. Which is Governor Greg Abbott at about 1:4 odds.

Texas Democrats probably had a better chance of defeating Governor Suckseed, despite what the early polls indicate.

For Wendy Davis, it means she can’t run against her perfect foil. She can’t run against damaged goods and a governor that many Texans have grown weary of. If Davis makes a bid for the Governor’s Mansion, she’ll most likely have to face Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, currently sitting atop a campaign fortune of $18 million and counting. The silver lining, though, is that Abbott is every bit as right-wing, if not more so, than Rick Perry. And in recent polling, Davis actually performs better against Abbott than she does Perry. Abbott leads her 48-40 (still a big lead) vs. Perry’s 53-39 advantage.

Davis, should she choose to run, would have a hard row to hoe no matter who she might challenge. And then there's the matter of defending her seat in the Texas Senate, which if lost gives the Republicans a 2/3rds majority in that body (and likely with Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick presiding over it).

Yes, that is all worse -- much worse -- than what is in place at the moment.

But Texas simply isn't changing fast enough to bring some big changes about in 2014. There might be a couple of lower-level statewide offices in closer play next year, but there are still no announced candidates that aren't Republicans.

Which means some wealthy fellow, probably Caucasian and conservative, gets to be the sacrificial lamb once more this cycle. Since Bill White probably doesn't want to get his butt beaten again, whose turn is it? I'm guessing businessman, maybe trial lawyer, devout Christian, similar sort of profile to what has been offered up in the past.

I'm pumped. How about you?

In related news, Katy Perry also announced that she would not run for governor of Texas.

I can't tell if those titties are strawberry ice cream or cherry-flavored whipped cream. Can you?

Standing with Texas Women Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance stands with Texas women as we bring you this week's roundup.

Off the Kuff explains that while the Supreme Court may have neutered the Voting Rights Act, the legal battles over the redistricting maps are far from over.

Horwitz of Texpatriate rips Houston mayoral candidate Eric Dick a new one.

The GOP's national strategy for Obamacare is erode, impede, repeat. PDiddie at Brains and Eggs thinks that's bound to be more effective than introducing bills to repeal it once a month for the past several years.

Many of the major pro-migrant groups have been pushing the U.S. House to pass the Senate's immigration reform bill, but in case you haven't heard, there are some like DosCentavos who have been railing against the bill's "border surge." DC reports on the Valley member of Congress who resigned from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus because of it. Could it trip up the CHC as the debate continues?

At TexasKaos, Libby Shaw gives us a long and passionate look at Texas women pushing back! Check out Texas GOP: Regulate Women's Reproductive Rights. But Don't Mess with Industry.

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

And here are some posts of interest from other Texas blogs.

From The Desk explains to her (Republican) Congressman why charity cannot adequately replace a government program like SNAP.

Former Texan Marci Glass says she'll be post-feminist when the world is post-patriarchy.

Juanita mocks the anonymous fool that's whining about Sen. Wendy Davis' appearance.

Nonsequiteuse will keep making her voice heard in Austin until someone listens to it.

Texas Leftist warns against underestimating Wendy Davis.

Bay Area Houston had Rick Perry's press release announcing his future plans before anyone else did.

BOR suggests that SB2, the bill dealing with 17-year-old murder suspects, may be unconstitutional.

Eric Dick on Annise Parker's "tyranny"

Somebody get that man a tri-corner hat.

Two City Council candidates facing thousands of dollars in fines for violating the city's sign ordinance during their 2011 campaigns accused Mayor Annise Parker on Friday of targeting them for their conservative beliefs.

Eric Dick, a lawyer who fell short in his bid for an at-large seat two years ago and who is running for mayor this year, drew ample criticism during the 2011 race for blanketing the city with red signs bearing his last name in prominent white letters. He and Clyde Bryan, who challenged westside District G incumbent Oliver Pennington, used the backdrop of the July 4 weekend to, as Dick put it, "declare independence from Annise Parker and her tyranny."

It won't be long before we see Dick backers dressed as in colonial Williamsburg, waving Gadsden flags, and wearing multiple teabags hanging from the brim of their straw hats.

Dick was cited for 90 sign violations, and Bryan for 41. The cases are being tried one at a time. So far, Dick's have ended in a mistrial and a $100 fine; Bryan was found not guilty in one case and had several others dismissed.

Dick and Bryan cited Councilman C.O. Bradford's example as proof of their persecution. Bradford was hit with 22 sign violations in 2011, all of which were dismissed.

"(Parker) selectively chose the people that were going to get violations," Dick said. "(Bradford) received many violations, but he got a free pass. Why? Because he's a Democrat. The Republicans got stuck with it. She's using city money to attack people that oppose her views."

Uh oh, I smell a race card in somebody's hand.

Asked why Parker would dismiss Bradford's cases for political reasons when the two are not allies and Bradford has, in fact, endorsed Ben Hall, Parker's most prominent opponent, Dick said, "He's a Democrat. She's hoping she'll get the support of the black community."

Bradford couldn't help chuckling at that. "The whole idea that this administration gave Bradford preferential treatment?" he said. "Let me just put a big question mark behind that."

Let's simply not conflate Councilman Bradford with the mayor, and not only because he speaks of himself in the third person tense. Even Bradford understands that standing too close to MAP would screw up his chances to be the nominee of the Gene Locke/Ben Hall Caucus in 2015.

I expect this to end badly for Dick, in both the near term and the far one.

Scenic Houston board chair Claudia Williamson said her group understands the use of signs in campaigns, but the group also supports the city's sign ordinance.

"What sort of message does it send that you are asking the voters to support you for a position of leadership in our city, yet you are not adhering to a well-defined city ordinance nor taking the basic responsibility of cleaning up your mess?" she said.

Allow me to provide that answer: it says you're a dumb dick.

Texpate was on the scene and filed a report (somewhat more respectful than mine). And Kuffner piles on.

Update: If Eric Dick actually wanted to understand what tyranny really is, he could check in with poor women in Texas.

The Texas GOP’s jihad against family planning and Planned Parenthood creates unintended pregnancies and leaves poor women with no options. This creates generational poverty and a low-wage workforce with no time to consider how the petrol-funded theocracy of the Lone Star State is designed to make the rich richer and workers less safe and more dependent on the corporations that have indentured them.

That’s how you get 31% of the state with no opinion of Senator John Cornyn, who has been in office for a decade.

And as he reminded us again just this morning, Rick Perry thinks forcing women to have children is something women should be proud of.

This is just too much dickishness for me at the end of a relaxing holiday weekend. The battle is joined again tomorrow in Austin -- and in San Antonio, for that matter. And anywhere in Houston some other Republican Dick might turn up.

Sunday Funnies

Independence Day

With revolutions in Syria, Brazil, and Turkey (perhaps Portugal as well) and a coup d'etat in Egypt, and with a few legal steps forward and a few back in their own country, Americans will celebrate today once more with grilled meat and fireworks. And some music.

Via Greg Mitchell, the "4th of July", covered by Robert Earl Keen and the original by Dave Alvin.





Via AMERICAblog, an a capella rendition of the national anthem, by Lady Gaga at last weekend's Pride Rally in New York.



And last, what would this blog be without a cartoon.

Here's a good list of celebrations in Houston, Galveston, and surrounding towns this weekend.

Abortion restrictions bill on ramming speed

The usual middle-of-the-night, cut-off-public-testimony, party-line-vote kind of thing.

On Monday, Rep. Byron Cook (R-Corsicana) warned that he would end testimony on House Bill 2, the sweeping anti-abortion bill, at midnight (Tuesday) no matter how many people wanted to testify. He said the House Committee on State Affairs might vote on the bill. And that’s exactly what happened.

Shortly after midnight, Cook put the bill to a vote and it passed on a 8-3 vote. More than 1,000 people who had signed up to speak were cut off. Rep. Sylvester Turner (D-Houston) was left sputtering that he had amendments he wanted to propose to the committee. “You know you’re wrong,” he said to Cook. But the Republican plan for this second special has been obvious: Use their large majorities in the House and the Senate to muscle the bill through and avoid another star-making moment like the Wendy Davis filibuster.

Tonight’s hearing was theater. The author of HB 2, Republican Rep. Jodie Laubenberg, studiously stuck to her script, reading from prepared remarks or responding to questions from Democrats on the committee with terse responses focused on “the health and safety of the woman.” There wasn’t going to be any “rape kits” goof tonight.

The number of Texans who appeared to give public testimony varied greatly. By one early account it was 1100, another 1900. Cook's rules, however, meant that a total of just 140 would actually have time to do so. It turned out to be less than a hundred who got to speak.

Testimony on the bill ranged from the heart-breakingly personal to the completely bizarre. (One man said he knew of a woman’s get-rich-quick scheme whereby she would encourage high school girls to get pregnant and then provide them with abortions. Her goal was to make $1 million at a rate of $25 profit per abortion. Another man, in favor of HB 2, established his bona fides by telling the committee that he was a “professional juggler” and “sidewalk angel.” Yet another man complained that his sister getting an abortion deprived him of the chance to be an uncle.)

Meanwhile, anti-abortion activists and some Republican lawmakers worried that Satan had gotten personally involved in the debate.

One report, back channel but first hand, indicated that the throttling efforts began early: the HB2 hearing was held in a room smaller than the Extension Auditorium, or even the normal committee room that State Affairs typically uses (in the Reagan building). GOP leadership also denied access to the Legislative Conference Center, the room that pro-choice activists used to organize last week. Texpate has another account from last night.

With 3,543 people signed up to testify, after getting started a little behind schedule (what a surprise), the Committee barely made it through 100 people before Cook took the unilateral, though not unexpected, step of cutting off public comment. Shortly after Midnight, without much warning, Cook abruptly ended the debate and took a vote. 8-3, along party lines in favor. However, the vote was taken so quickly that two Democrats could not return to the desk. Accordingly, the real vote should have been 8-5.

Shortly thereafter, the Capitol got cleared and locked down. The result, in the above photograph, was roughly 1000-1700 angry protesters banging on the doors to their place of government while 7 White Men and 1 White Woman, in the dead of night, passed punitively burdensome restrictions on the right to abortion.

The bill will move on to the full House next Tuesday when the body is scheduled to reconvene. The Senate committee will take similar action in short order. The bills will get a brief airing in the full chambers, pass according to party affiliation -- with a few notable exceptions, primarily fervent Catholic Democratic men joining the Republicans -- and move swiftly to the governor for signature, perhaps as quickly as a week from now.

The Republicans can do whatever they feel like doing in Texas, just because they can, and they aren't going to let anybody or anything -- certainly not a trifling thing like democracy or the voice of the people -- stop them.

With fresh polling indicating that the Democrats are just as far away from taking back the governor's mansion as they ever have been over the past twelve years; with the same poll suggesting that Rick Perry has strengthened his hand among GOP primary voters -- the only people who count for anything in this state -- there is absolutely nothing that the Republicans in the Legislature feel except some minor annoyance over the whole affair. Kuffner has more insight into the polling.

There's going to be one opportunity to send a message that sounds any different to them. And that will come in November of 2014. Between now and then, the people who oppose this authoritarian display, not to mention this legislation, have their work cut precisely out for them.

Update: Salon's Joan Walsh points out that progressive women in red states will be a key constituency in hastening the change. Because it ain't just Texas where this shit is going down.

GOP's erosion strategy against Obamacare

It's a multi-pronged offensive.

Nearly half the nation's states are opting not to expand Medicaid to all of their low-income residents, leaving billions of federal dollars on the table and millions of poor Americans uninsured.

At least 21 states are opting out of Medicaid expansion for next year. In another six states, legislators are still weighing their options, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, which is tracking the states' plans.

[...]

What happens to impoverished citizens in states that don't expand? The most likely answer is that they'll slip through the cracks and remain without health insurance.

Some of these folks will be eligible for subsidies to buy individual health insurance on state-based exchanges. But those with income below the poverty line cannot receive subsidies, because the Affordable Care Act intended for them to be covered through Medicaid. If their state opts out, they're stranded. (They also will not be subject to financial penalties for not having insurance. Those penalties begin at $95 per adult in 2014 and increase in later years.)

As it stands now, an estimated 11.5 million uninsured, non-elderly, poor adults live in states that have opted out, according to Kaiser.

More on this development here. But it's not just the poor who are getting threatened.

(Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen) Sebelius told reporters early last week that the National Football League was “enthusiastically engaged” in talks about a partnership to encourage people to enroll on the new health insurance exchanges, which will provide coverage to about 7 million Americans by the end of March 2014. However, by the week’s end, the NFL had contradicted her statement, saying that the league “currently [has] no plans to engage in this area.” This assertion came after the NFL received a public warning from Republican Senate leaders, who also sent letters to five other professional sports leagues suggesting they not promote Obamacare. The letters were cosigned by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Texas Senator John Cornyn.

“Given the divisiveness and persistent unpopularity of this bill, it is difficult to understand why an organization like yours would risk damaging its inclusive and apolitical brand by lending its name to its promotion,” wrote McConnell Cornyn to commissioner Roger Goodell in a letter published by TPM on Friday.

When even the Billionaire Boys Club is getting a shakedown from the Irish Mafia, you know something has really soured. Whatsamattah John, your season tickets have an obstructed view?

This is, obviously, somewhat more effective than simply introducing legislation in the House to overturn Obamacare 37 times in the past 5 years. It's just another one of those 'elections have consequences' things we're all still paying for from 2010.

Hate to sound like a broken record, but this sort of governance (sic) from Republicans is just going to keep getting worse until we all do something about it at the ballot box. I don't expect any party conversions among the NFL owners, so it's up to the rest of us to fix it.

Update: Administration punts on key ACA provision. And Socratic Gadfly has a withering opinion of that.

High Noon

The appearance by the former Dixie Chick is greatly anticipated. You know, I barely cared much for any country music (except for outlaws like Cash and Coe) before the Chicks burst on the scene in the late '90's. This is still one of my favorites; I hope those on the South Steps today get to hear it.

The Weekly Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance stands with Wendy as it brings you this week's roundup.

Off the Kuff points to two recent polls about abortion to note that the people really aren't asking for more restrictions on reproductive choice.

Horwitz of Texpatriate asks the question on everyone's minds: will the Senate Democrats stay or go in the second special session?

Rick Perry thought he learned more from the life of Wendy Davis than she did, so he mansplained it to an anti-choice organization last week. And even Joe Straus was appalled. PDiddie at Brains and Eggs observed that this mansplaining business is a much more common form of testosterone poisoning than anyone previously knew.

WCNews at Eye on Williamson says it was a bad week for voting rights, in A sad day in the United States.

At TexasKaos, Libby Shaw tells about The Night Texas Turned Blue. Wendy Davis made us all proud.

This week at McBlogger, Cap'n Kroc has a message of welcome for the people newly energized by the Filicluster.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme hails the Supreme Court ruling on DOMA, but check out what it really means in a state like Texas.

The Ghost of Sam Houston makes an appearance at Darth Politico to talk Wendy Davis, Democracy, the rule of law, and the importance of civil disobedience.

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

And here are some posts of interest from other Texas blogs.

Jim Rigby pens an open letter to the women of Texas.

Iain Simpson contemplates the connection between whistleblowing and civil disobedience.

BOR explains what the SCOTUS decision on UT's admissions policy means.

State representative Mark Strama announced his plans for the future.

Nonsequiteuse places the blame for Tuesday's debacle in the Senate where it belongs, and reminds us that the fight is far from over.

Lone Star Ma also stands with Wendy.

Mark Bennett gives the ten commandments of courtroom humor.

Andrea Grimes explains to people outside Texas why they should never write us off.

Texagain and Rachel Farris document their experiences in the Senate chamber during the Davis filibuster.

Concerned Citizens thinks Sen. Davis should run for lt. governor, not governor.

Harold Cook updates us on the latest Republican minority outreach program.

Sunday Funnies

Mansplaining

"The fact is, who are we to say that children born into the worst of circumstances can't grow to live successful lives?" Rick Perry asked Thursday in a speech before the 43rd annual National Right to Life Convention in Dallas. "In fact, even the woman who filibustered the Senate the other day was born into difficult circumstances."

"She was the daughter of a single woman. She was a teenage mother herself. She managed to eventually graduate from Harvard Law School and serve in the Texas senate," Perry continued. "It's just unfortunate that she hasn't learned from her own example that every life must be given a chance to realize its full potential and that every life matters." 

There's no better summary of the Texas Taliban's War on Women than this, from the head mullah himself. Except for this one.

It was classic mansplaining -- as Elyse Fradkin pithily summarized it on Twitter, "when a man explains to a woman how she should view the meaning of her own life experience."

The term derives from Rebecca Solnit's article, "Men Explain Things to Me," which opens with a wealthy older man hosting an event in Aspen at which he lectures her on "a very important Muybridge book that came out this year" after she brings up the photographer in casual conversation. He goes on and on at great length until she finally realizes he is playing the expert and seeking to educate her about the book she herself wrote.

The idea of mansplaining has grown to be applied to any situation in which men believe they are the experts and drone on and on about something on which the women being lectured are the actual experts. It also refers to the social syndrome in which women cast themselves as listeners who doubt their own expertise in the face of such masculine certainty.

Update: Or, as Jamison Foser Tweeted it...

Rick Perry thinks Rick Perry learned more from Wendy Davis being a single mother than Wendy Davis did. Seems unlikely.
— Jamison Foser (@jamisonfoser) June 27, 2013

That last sentence in the prior excerpt  helps us better understand this.

Those are the Republican women of the Texas House of Representatives standing behind Jodie "Cleaned Out" Laubenberg, from the debate this past week regarding the passage of the abortion restrictions legislation. (That's her in the middle at the mic, in the pink jacket. Try not to stare at the toad in the black dress and Cinderella slippers; the one with her toes at 9 o'clock and 3 o'clock. Try also not to notice that some of these professional women don't wear nylons to work -- and not just because they are wearing pants, leggings, or sandals borrowed from their teen-age daughters.)

Repeated for emphasis: "women who cast themselves as listeners, doubting their own expertise in the face of such masculine certainty". Then there are the women who truly don't have any expertise, like the ones in the photo.

Because so many Republican men think that all women are like Republican women, it does not occur to them that there can be women like Wendy Davis. Or Leticia Van de Putte, whose question set off the roaring in the Texas Senate gallery that ultimately killed the bill.

We all know (that would be Republicans and Democrats, as well as Greens and Libertarians and independents) that Republican women and men like those mentioned previously are actually the minority of Texans. Our problems in Texas, however, stem from the fact that they are the majority of those who vote. That's why people like Rick Perry and Greg Abbott and Sen. Bob Deuell -- and Ted Cruz and Steve Stockman and Louie Gohmert -- and women like those pictured above are our elected officials.

We also know that these same people are desperate to keep it that way. The Supreme Court cases, the gerrymandered districts, the voter ID legislation now back on ramming speed... all of it is designed to keep people like this right where they are. In charge.

And there's only one thing that will change it: the people who haven't been voting are going to have to start. And those of us who are interested in not having representation like this are going to have to help the non-voters get registered, get their IDs, and get to the polls during early voting periods and on election day. And, of course, help inform them and keep them up to date on things, including the issues.

Texas has nearly the very lowest percentage of its citizens participating in the electoral process in the entire nation. It may be that Texans are represented by morons because so many of them are in fact morons themselves, but at least for another couple of cycles I'm going to hope that this reality can be changed with more engagement with them by the thinking class.

If you can imagine, as agents of change in state government, the swearing-in of Governor Greg Abbott and Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick in January of 2015, hopefully that is motivation enough to get to work now to make sure that scenario doesn't come to pass. Here's this weekend's opportunity in the Houston area. There are many more across the state, and there will be many more opportunities in the future, but the time to take action is now.

Women and the men who respect them can't wait any longer, but that's also true of poor people and people of color. It's gone on for too long like this as it is.

We need to change it, and this is how that will happen.

Taiwanese animate Texas filibuster

Starring Wendy Davis as Supergirl, of course.



Featuring an appearance by the Ghost of Ann Richards. And a pretty good likeness of Donna "Get them OUT! I want them out of here!" Campbell (although her ass is about twice that big in real life).