Overnight developments in voter ID case, polling

-- YouGov, which polled me on September 20 and completed fieldwork on these latest results on October 1, has Greg Abbott at 54% and Wendy Davis at 40%. (John Cornyn leads David Alameel 55-35).  In other words, nothing has changed.

YouGov has already polled me again over the weekend, for Texas statewide races all the way down to Land Commissioner (no judicials) and several hot-button issues.  Those include the National Guard at the border, supporting or opposing deportation of immigrants and the photo ID law, various circumstances under which a woman should be able to have an abortion, whether undocumenteds should receive in-state tuition, and gay marriage.  This sounds like a Texas Tribune/UT profile to me, and thus I would expect results from this polling in a week... just in time for early voting

In their overall US Senate measurements, YouGov has the Democrats losing Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, and South Dakota.   They hold Iowa, North Carolina, Colorado, and Michigan.  Kansas is dead even.  In that scenario, Mitch McConnell becomes Senate Majority Leader (if his caucus will still have him, that is).

-- The Fifth Circuit has ordered all parties in the Texas photo ID case to submit their arguments by 3 p.m. today.  Lyle Denniston at SCOTUS blog reiterates what was posted here previously.

If this dispute moves on to the Supreme Court, which seems quite likely, it will be the fourth time in recent days that the Justices have been drawn into the widespread controversy in this election season over new restrictions on voting rights.

In three separate actions, the Justices blocked a voter ID law in Wisconsin, but permitted limitations on early voting in Ohio and limits on same-day registration and voting as well as some limits on vote counting in North Carolina.

The differing treatment has not been explained, but it appears that the Court has been less willing to permit changes in voting procedures to be changed close to elections.  That is a principle the Court appeared to establish in a late October 2006 decision, Purcell v. Gonzalez, involving an Arizona proof-of-citizenship requirement, which the Justices allowed to remain in effect, citing “the imminence of the election and the inadequate time to resolve the factual disputes.”

In the Texas dispute, the Fifth Circuit is expected to act quickly after the challengers and the Justice Department offer their views on the postponement request.  Those filings were limited to ten pages.

Texas conducted elections in 2013 using photo IDs.  Not requiring them for voting beginning a week from tomorrow could be considered a material enough revision by the SCOTUS for them to dodge an appeal from the plaintiffs if/when the Fifth Circuit rules against them.   If I were a betting man -- and I am -- my guess is that the Fifth overturns Judge Ramos' decision tomorrow evening or Tuesday morning, there is an immediate appeal to the SC which they decline to consider, and photo IDs go back into effect for the Texas election.

I'd be delighted to be wrong somewhere in there.

Updates: This report in the DMN details the hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions that Fulbright & Jaworski and Vinson & Elkins, two of the largest law firms in Texas, have made to Greg Abbott in exchange for even larger-dollar contracts for legal work from the state of Texas.  Thirty-nine million dollars to F&J, $13 million to V&E.  It's more of the same old quid pro quo from Abbott.

And via e-mail, the two major party state Comptroller candidates, Mike Collier and Glenn Hegar, will hold a debate on October 29, to be televised by Time Warner Cable.

Sunday Freak Out Funnies

Dan Patrick seizes on ISIS-at-border claims in first TV ad

Wheelchair ads

National media seems to have the vapors about Wendy Davis' latest teevee ad.  And if that's what the WaPo and the AP are saying, you can only imagine how offended Breitbart Texas is acting.  Why, even Mother Jones is clutching her pearls.

I just don't think any of these people have been following the race for Texas governor very closely.  Or if they have, they've been doing so from a posh suite of offices inside the Beltway.

Here's a couple of explanations for the out-of-towners about how political campaigns go in the Lone Star State from some of my fellow bloggers who know about these things.  Or you can read the comments on the story at the HouChron, which for the uninitiated is no bastion of Texas liberalism.  You will find several short -- even Tweetably short -- descriptions of precisely what the spot is about.

Specifically, a self-loathing sociopath.

For those who won't click: the ad is about the baldest demonstration of hypocrisy ever performed by any politician anywhere, and not the fact that he was too stupid to get out of the way of a falling tree.  So let's be certain that the corporate media outside Texas regains its focus by repeating the truth about Greg Abbott.

Now if someone wants to scream and cry about those who would make fun of people in wheelchairs, I got your outrage right here.  Swinging.

More Texas voter ID legal developments

-- Greg Abbott asks for some guidance (via Quorum Report).

While it is obvious that the federal court in Corpus Christi has rejected Texas' voter ID law as discriminatory and a de facto poll tax, it failed to issue a judgment instructing the state on required procedures, if any, for the November election.

The Office of the Attorney General has issued a request for guidance on the initiation and scope of the injunction and whether it will be implemented for this election. The request notes "The issuance of an opinion with no injunction or direction regarding the timing of the injunction is already adding to the confusion created by the Court’s decision. Texas respectfully requests that the Court enter the planned injunction and judgment by the close of business today."

The request for guidance can be found here.

Update (10/11): And guidance is supplied.

-- Chad Dunn, the TDP lawyer who makes his living doing this, weighs in (via Lone Star Project):

LSP: Greg Abbott has already announced that he will appeal Judge Ramos’ ruling to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. How long will that process take, and what happens after the 5th Circuit rules?

CD: We expect Judge Ramos to issue an order formally blocking enforcement of the Texas voter ID law within the next few days. Greg Abbott has already announced that he will appeal her ruling and ask the 5th Circuit US Court of Appeals to reverse her order. After the 5th Circuit rules, the case will almost certainly be appealed to the US Supreme Court. It would not surprise me if both the 5th Circuit and the Supreme Court issue rulings on this matter in next ten days. (emphasis mine)

I guess some attorneys are going to be working over the weekend.

For want of a stamp, the election was lost

All apologies to James Baldwin William Shakespeare whomever.  The following account is a transcript of the news report shown on the 10 p.m. newscast of Houston's ABC affiliate, KTRK, last night.  They don't have their own video posted to the website yet, so this one from Lane Lewis will have to suffice for now.

Hundreds of mail-in ballots that are being mistakenly held for days at a downtown post office will now be delivered to the Harris County Clerks Office.

The downtown post office was holding the ballots for insufficient postage, something they are not supposed to do.

"We found a glitch. And we're going to expose this," said Harris County Democratic Chairman Lane Lewis.

Lewis found out about the ballots and offered to pay for the postage shortage. Almost all the ballots were short on postage by just pennies.

"These votes whether Republican or Democrat, I don't know, but they need to be counted," said Lewis.

A postal worker told Eyewitness News the shortage was about $57. The worker said for that price, Lewis could take the ballots, put the stamp on himself and return them to the post office. That's against policy and illegal.

"We could have walked out of here with those ballots. But we did not," said Lewis.

"That is totally irresponsible on their part," said Harris County Clerk Stan Stanart.

Eyewitness News learned the county clerk's office has an account with the (Houston) postmaster, so any shortage should be billed to his office. Post office workers said they knew nothing about an account. They were ready to send the ballots back to the voters.

"By procedure and by law, deliver the ballots regardless of the postage on those ballots," said Stanart.

So then... it's not his fault, it's the post office's fault.

Eyewitness News learned Stanart made his own mistake. The return ballot states the postage is 69 cents. But it should have been 70 cents. Some ballots were being held for just a penny. Stanart said he didn't know about the change in postage.

"I personally didn't. I would have to talk to my office if they do know that," said Stanart. 

Uh oh.  So whose fault is it again?  There's no "Buck Stops Here" plate on that man's desk. This is how a person takes personal responsibility for their mistakes.

Dionne Montague, a USPS spokeswoman, released the following statement to Eyewitness News:

"We have policies in place to ensure absentee balloting material, received in the mail, is handled promptly. We do not delay delivering ballot materials even when they are received with insufficient funds or no postage. Our policy is to attempt to collect the postage due from the election office at the time of delivery or at a later date. This policy will be reinforced with all of our employees."

Stanart said the problem has been worked out, and the ballots will be soon delivered to his office.

There might be some chain-of-command issues regarding the way those ballots were handled, just from what I observed in the video.  And Stanart's deer-in-the-headlights, wide-eyed blinking on the videotape are as solid a tell as you'll ever see in any poker game.

It's been well-established for some time now that Stan Stanart is just in over his head.  After four years in office he still can't get the basic things right.  The Houston Chronicle choked in their endorsement of this race, and everyone -- I'm looking at you, Republicans -- needs to fix this mistake in government.

Ann Harris Bennett, everybody.  For the gracious sake of no more embarrassments in the County Clerk's office.  More mailed ballot news from Charles.

Federal judge crushes Texas photo ID law

Christmas came early, y'all.

A federal court has struck down Texas’s voter ID law.  It violates the Voting Rights Act, it violates the constitutional prohibition on poll taxes, it violates the constitutional prohibition of unjustified burdens, it violates the constitutional prohibition on intentional racial discrimination: indeed, in 147 pages of opinion, there’s little that the ID law doesn’t violate.

Also extremely important: the court expressly finds intentional discrimination relevant to bail-in under the Voting Rights Act, and says it will consider a bail-in order in the days to come.  If the court indeed follows up with a bail-in order, Texas could become the first state brought back under a pre-clearance regime since Shelby County.

The judge, Nelva Gonzales Ramos, destroyed the arguments Greg Abbott and Texas Republicans made that the law was necessary.  It's a wipeout for the conservatives who have staked their claim on suppressing the vote.

It's not over, though.  Expect an emergency appeal by Abbott to the Fifth Circuit, and a possible stay of Judge Gonzales' order, leaving the law intact for the coming election.

Update:  The SCOTUS tonight has also blocked the state of Wisconsin from implementing its photo ID law.  But keep in mind that they have already allowed both Ohio and North Carolina to proceed with their restrictive laws, so there's no telling how we might wind up.  If I had to guess, I would say that should the Fifth Circuit stays the lower court's injunction, then there isn't simply enough time for the Supremes to rule before Texans start voting, eleven days from now.

Update II: A good explainer from Think Progress.

Although the Supreme Court’s order does not explain why the Court halted the (Wisconsin) law, a short dissenting opinion by Justice Samuel Alito provides a window into the Court’s reasoning. Alito begins his dissent by admitting that “[t]here is a colorable basis for the Court’s decision due to the proximity of the upcoming general election.” In a 2006 case called Purcell v. Gonzalez, the Supreme Court explained that judges should be reluctant to issue orders affecting a state’s election law as an election approaches. “Court orders affecting elections,” according to Purcell, “can themselves result in voter confusion and consequent incentive to remain away from the polls. As an election draws closer, that risk will increase.” It is likely that the six justices who agreed to halt the Wisconsin law relied on Purcell in reaching this decision.

Only two justices, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, joined Alito’s dissent. Both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy joined the four more liberal justices in the majority.

Thursday’s order halting the Wisconsin voter ID law may also provide some explanation for why seven justices voted to reinstate a voter suppression law in North Carolina on Wednesday. If Purcell‘s fear of changes to election law close to an election is the rule, then that rule should apply no matter whose ox is gored.

King Street Thugs lose again

From the press release...

(Yesterday), the Texas Democratic Party prevailed in King Street Patriots v. Texas Democratic Party, when the Texas Court of Appeals for the Third District confirmed a lower court decision to uphold provisions of Texas campaign finance law. [Campaign Legal Center, 10/8/2014]

The Texas Democratic Party’s suit alleged that the King Street Patriots had made in-kind contributions to the Republican Party of Texas. These donations would have been a violation of the restrictions on corporate political contributions. They also failed to register as a “political committee” and comply with Texas Disclosure Law. In response, the King Street Patriots filed a counterclaim that challenged the constitutionality of parts of Texas’ campaign finance laws. [Houston Chronicle, 3/28/2012]

Update: Quorum Report had  more (including the "blast from the past" link to Hair Balls).

The controversial conservative group King Street Patriots on Wednesday lost its appeal to exempt itself from the Texas Election Code, paving the way for the group to file a writ before the Texas Supreme Court.

The Patriots were a serious source of contention during the 2010 elections in Houston, where they were accused of intimidating voters at the polls. The patriots, who called themselves poll watchers, were well known for their campaign called “True the Vote.”

The Texas Democratic Party sued the King Street Patriots, alleging it needed to register as a political action committee under the Texas Election Code. The King Street Patriots, which refused to participate in discovery, counter-sued the Texas Democratic Party and the party chairs in Harris and Dallas counties, saying they were an independent non-partisan non-profit group exempt from registration.

Even Alex Jones gets it: King Street Patriots/True the Vote is hamstrung -- by the terms of the lawsuit they settled with the Democratic Party two years ago -- from doing those things they do to intimidate voters and suppress voting.  Court-compelled designation as a PAC restricts their special brand of bullshit even further.  But that won't stop them, in fact will barely slow them down.

Some of you may have seen Campos' post (also here) about the surge in D mailed ballots.  Sidebar: it's a credit to Glen Maxey -- someone I have excoriated here in the recent past -- and county chairs like Lane Lewis (Harris) and Don Bankston (Fort Bend) to have executed what appears to be a very successful strategy to increase this level of turnout to nearly presidential-year levels.  It's got the Republicans running scared.  In particular, it's got Harris County Clerk Stan Stanart terrified.

There might be more about that I can blog later, but for now just know that James O'Keefe is in town, and he's looking for trouble.  We already knew that Harris County Republican elected officials and KSP/TTV and yes, the Texas attorney general have a long and corrupt history together.

Update: More on the overall increase in Texas voter registrations from MSNBC, which links to our very own Kuff for the numbers.

US Senate control is too close to call

Nate Silver says Republicans. Jerry Wang -- turning into Silver's archrival, perhaps even nemesis -- says Democrats. At least one person is saying it will be 50-50 (with indys like Angus King and Greg Orman of Kansas caucusing with the Dems).

I can't recall this much polling volatility in so many races this late in the season.  Kay Hagan (NC) appears to be pulling ahead; Mark Begich (Alaska) and Bruce Braley (Iowa) are falling behind.  Alison Lundergan Grimes just got her first good poll in awhile in her effort to topple Mitch "Mr. Turtle" McConnell.  Is it an outlier?

I have no instinct I can place faith in about how things are going to go with 3.5 weeks remaining.  That's unusual.  Some folks are a little more certain, which is to say pessimistic.

I feel pretty confident that Republicans are going to keep doing everything they can to allow as few people as possible to cast a ballot.  And while Democratic governors and gubernatorial candidates around the nation are poised for a big night on the first Tuesday of November... the only outcome I'm sure about, sadly, is Texas.

The Senate, meanwhile, is a coin flip.

Update (10/9): Developments in the 24 hours since this was posted suggest South Dakota is going to be hotly contested.

Caption this photo

Winner so far: "This is the only way I would ever shake Rick Perry's hand."

The P Slate: local judicials

Harris County has a justice system that rivals those of some small countries.  There are 26 state district civil courts, 22 criminal ones and 11 family law courts, and that doesn't count the 18 justices on two state courts of appeal, the 16 justices of the peace, and the judges who serve on the probate and juvenile courts and the county courts at law.  (Recommendations for the highest courts in the state -- the Texas Supreme Court and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals -- will appear in a later post.)

If you live in the nation's third most populous county, about half of those various judgeships show up on your ballot every two years.  And in a deep purple, virtually 50-50 county like Harris, that means straight Democratic ticket voters in presidential years tend to wash out the Republicans on the bench, and in off-presidential years they get swept back in by the same straight-ticket voting phenomenon... coupled with the fact that so many Democratic voters sit out the midterms.  This doesn't even take into consideration all the voters who stop voting after the top handful of races, especially when you consider that Harris County has one of the longest ballots in the nation.

So many of the county's judicial races are decided by their party's straight ticket voters.  I personally agree with many others that straight-ticket voting is a pox on the democratic process, and not just because it gives so many participants a somewhat arrogant sense of satisfaction that they have completed their biannual citizenship requirement in thirty seconds or less.  But it's the reality of how we elect judges in Harris County, and in Texas and other states as well.  If you want more evidence besides the numbers, just note that some Republicans think 2014 is going to be a blue year, and some Democrats don't.  It's all about who turns out their voters.

(I don't do endorsements per se; I just take my secret ballot and roll it out online for your perusal.  It's your prerogative, of course, to agree or disagree with my picks.  I offer them to voters who wish to carefully discern which judges might be most inclined to interpret the law with fairness and in a progressive perspective, as opposed to a conservative one.  In the evolution of assessing judges and judicial candidates for suitability, I've gotten to the point where I can no longer vote for Republicans.  I simply don't think that anyone who aligns themselves with the appalling extremism of the Republican Party of Texas has the appropriate temperament and corresponding jurisprudence to merit my consideration.  YMMV.)

Before I run down a few of my favorites on the ballot this year, I wish to acknowledge Judge Al Bennett of the 61st Civil District Court, who has recently been nominated to the federal bench by President Obama.  Judge Bennett is one the most exemplary men I've had the fortune of meeting in politics, and that has only a little to do with his outstanding qualifications to serve.  I first came to know him several years ago, when he ran for House District 146, a contest that also featured current-Rep. Borris Miles and former Rep. Al Edwards.  Bennett made a point of seeking my support, and as I had already committed to Miles, I asked him to run in another race so that I could do so.  Well, he did and I did, and the rest is history.

Now on to my recommendations.

-- Judge Kyle Carter, of the 125th Civil District Court, seeks election to Chief Justice of the Fourteenth Court of Appeals.  A no-brainer, as there are NO Democrats serving on the Fourteenth, and five of the nine Republican justices currently serving were first appointed by Rick Perry.  Carter is challenging the incumbent Chief Justice, Kem Frost, who was appointed to the court by then-Gov. George W. Bush.

 This court needs some balance.  Similarly...

-- Justice Jim Sharp of the First Court of Appeals seeks re-election.  He's the only Democrat on that court.  He's also as progressive as they come for a judge.  Yes, he's gotten himself in a little hot water over his conduct in recent years.  And conservatives have gone after him hammer and tong.  Frankly, his eccentricities have endeared him to me.  Sharp gets my vote and my support.

Texpatriate endorses both Carter and Sharp today as well.

-- Barbara Gardner, running for the 234th District Court. In her words, paraphrasing...

I am running for the 234th because I am considerably more qualified than the person Rick Perry appointed to serve one year ago. In observing Governor Perry's judicial appointments, I have noticed that he most often appoints a person who -- in the words of Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Willet -- is aligned with the governor's judicial philosophy, which is pro-defendant, anti-consumer, and "unabashedly conservative". This is contrary to our state constitution, which provides for election of judges by citizens, and it is contrary to our concepts of fairness and justice."

That's it in a nutshell.  Kuff has a Q&A with Gardner today.

-- Steven Kirkland, running for Judge, 113th Civil District Court.  Kirkland was ousted from the 215th in 2012 in one of the uglier homophobic demonstrations in Harris County that managed to incorporate a little racism as well.  He's been a fine municipal and state court judge and a friend of the family.

-- Similarly, these three judicials: Tracy Good for the 313th Juvenile Court, Harold Landreneau for County Criminal Court at Law #2, and Tanner Garth for the 281st Civil are acquaintances of mine and come strongly recommended.

-- In addition, Ursula Hall, running for the 189th Civil; Farrah Martinez, running for the 190th Civil, and Scott Dollinger, running for the County Civil Court at Law, #2 get my vote.

And all of the judicial candidates listed here are worthy of yours.

The Weekly Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance reminds you that today is the last day to register to vote in Texas.  Here's the roundup of lefty blog posts from last week.

Off the Kuff began his series of interviews with statewide candidates by talking to Sam Houston, the Democratic candidate for Attorney General.

Libby Shaw, writing for Texas Kaos and at Daily Kos, is very pleased that  Wendy Davis hammered Greg Abbott on Austin's pervasive culture of corruption.

From WCNews at Eye on Williamson: The question remains, is something like the Texas Enterprise Fund scandal enough to get voters to change their mind about Greg Abbott and the GOP? If not then what would it take?

William Rivers Pitt wrote "an open letter to his Democratic spammer". PDiddie at Brains and Eggs commiserates.

BlueDaze outs the not-from-Denton Master Debator representing the frackers.

Texpatriate updated the lieutenant governor's race, Texas Leftist reviewed the debate, and Egberto Willies passed along the HouChron's endorsement of Leticia Van de Putte.

Bay Area Houston wonders why Greg Abbott sat in traffic for ten years before deciding he wanted to help.

Neil at All People Have Value wrote an art review of the fish cleaning station at the Texas City Dike. APHV is one of many pages worthy of review at NeilAquino.com.

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

And here are some posts from other Texas blogs.

jobsanger ruefully observes that Wendy Davis is trailing in the governor's race because Texans don't feel that women should be equal to men.  But Socratic Gadfly believes there is no "self-hating woman" meme at work here.

TFN gives us the news that RNC head Reince Priebus believes it's 'compassionate' for Texas Republicans to close women's clinics in Texas.

Trail Blazers has the story of the lesbian couple that that asked the Fifth Circuit to schedule arguments next month in their gay marriage suit ... because they're expecting in March.

Scott Braddock shows the evidence of who's behind some recent wingnut-on-wingnut violence. Be sure your popcorn popper is in good order, this one looks like a gift that will keep on giving.

Lone Star Q is happy to report that Dallas City Council has voted week to ban discrimination against transgender city employees.

The Lunch Tray took a stand for citizen journalism.

Hair Balls explains what pot has to do with the Harris County DA race this year.

Char Miller eulogizes his colleague John Donahue, a "gracious force for good" in San Antonio.

Nancy Sims posits her grand unification theory of Houston Mayoral elections.

The Texas Election Law Blog assesses the GAO report on how long it took to vote in 2012.

Texas Watch wants you to understand the impact of the Texas law that shields the medical industry from accountability.

BOR points to HD94 as a below-the-radar race to watch.

Nonsequiteuse connects the dots from racing for the cure to racing for Governor.

The weekend's political events

About fifty people gathered in the lovely home of Lee and Hardy Loe on Saturday afternoon to hear the Texas Green statewide candidates talk about their campaigns and policies.

From left to right: Deb Shafto, candidate for Comptroller of Public Accounts, Emily "Spicybrown" Sanchez, candidate for US Senate, Martina Salinas, candidate for Railroad Commissioner, Kenneth Kendrick, candidate for Agriculture Commissioner, and Jim Chisholm, candidate for Texas Supreme Court Justice, Place 8.

There was even a representative of the Kim Ogg for Harris County District attorney campaign, who got a minute at the end to speak and pass out some literature.  That's how you build coalitions, folks.  Not like this.

-- Speaking of Ogg, she's debating the Republican incumbent in a few minutes on local TV.  Update: Here's some play-by-play; here's the video, courtesy Click2Houston.

Sunday Deja Vu Funnies

Tom DeLay, Lawrence Meyers, and the Christian caliphate in Texas

Lots of things to do today -- blockwalking for the Wendy Davis campaign in my precinct again this morning, a Green statewide candidate fundraiser this evening.  Some things that I meant to blog, or blog more about...

-- Tom DeLay plans on returning to DC as a politician, but first he needs to sue the Travis County DA for corruption.  Such rich irony.

I wrote so much about El Cucaracho Grande in the early years of Brains.  That protest we had in front of the Hilton at the 2005 NRA convention was off the hook.  I even went down to Pasadena and stood in the sleet at 7 a.m. at an elementary school and pushed cards for Richard Morrison, who ran against him in 2004.  This post, one of the top ten most-clicked here -- it was search-engine optimized, as you can perhaps tell -- appears to have been the last thing I blogged on the topic (that wasn't about Dancing with the Stars).

I knew after the first appeals court white-washed his criminal record that he would skate.  The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals -- about which I have written more recently -- is nothing if not consistent.  And that court and its judges are, it should be emphasized, the actual problem in Texas with respect to the infestation of corrupt Republicans that pervades the state's body politic.  Tom DeLay -- and Greg Abbott and Rick Perry and Louie Gohmert and Sid Miller and all of the rest of the worst conservatives money can buy -- are just symptoms of that problem.

My Cuban in-laws used to say of Fidel Castro: "bicho malo nunca muerte".  A bad bug never dies.  Truer words were never spoken of either man.

-- The only Democrat on the Texas CCA, Lawrence Meyers (he was a Republican until recently), is suing Texas over the voter/photo ID law.  This news gives Texans who are not Republicans hope for a better, more just Texas.

-- But progress comes slowly, and often there is regression before progress can be resumed.

Women's clinics in Texas are closing, the burdens being created for Texas women to exercise their rights to choice are harsh and undue, and the worst is yet to come.  The next step will be the Texas Legislature passing a bill in 2015 that outlaws abortions in Texas, even in cases of rape or incest.  Governor Greg Abbott will sign it.  After that, the focus will shift to criminalizing the perpetrators of abortion.  Specifically, capital punishment.  This should not surprise anybody when it occurs.

Update: Think Progress gets it: The ultimate goal of the Texas abortion law (HB2, as it's called) is having the Supremes overturn Roe v. Wade.  As Charles reminds, elections have consequences.

And then they will go after the gays.  I expect the Legislature to try to void equal rights city ordinances like Houston's and San Antonio's with bills written next year.  We should see nothing less than legislation crafted by the people who wish for a Christian caliphate coming out of the Lege next session... that is, if they can elbow the corporate lawyers and lobbyists out of their way in the stampede up the Great Walk.  The rightest of the right will have a super-majority in Austin next year.  They can do whatever they like.  The only real fight will be between the Fundys and the Corporatists.

All of these developments suggest a bright economic future for barristers on both sides of the aisle.

Precisely.

"An Open Letter to My Democratic Spammer", by William Rivers Pitt.

Are you, by chance, feeling a bit ragged around the edges? On the verge of disaster? Perhaps even a bit doomed?

Me, too!

I can't imagine why...

...oh, wait. I know exactly why. I looked at my email this week.

"TRAGIC Conclusion," read one.

"Terrible News (JUST NOW)," read another.

"CANCEL NOTICE," read another.

"we. will. fail." read another.

And another, just like those. And another. And another. And another.

It wasn't the end of the world, as it turns out. It was, in fact, the master plan of some fundraiser fuzzwit for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, who decided the thing to do is to scream manically into every email address available using panic-riddled headlines designed to make you click them open, because Jesus, what if?

"Terrible News (JUST NOW)." Oh, no, what happened? "CANCEL NOTICE." What didn't I pay for? "TRAGIC Conclusion." Oh God, who died?

Probably 300 emails like this in my in-box since the weekend, one after the other prophesying calamity...unless I gave $5 to the Democrats.

That's precisely my inbox as well.  I unsubscribe, they keep coming.  They've sold my e-address to so many different campaigns so many times it's ridiculous.

You want my money? Really? After decades of sucking up to Wall Street and the "defense" industry, you're telling me, over and over and over again, that you're hat-in-hand broke?

My ass. You have pornographically wealthy friends, and you bow and scrape to them every chance you get, to my detriment, and to the detriment of everyone I know, all of whom you've pestered for money.

As you send your hundreds of emails seeking cash for a party that is stacked from pillar to post with a Who's Who of Wall Street insiders, the rest of us scratch by as best we can in this catastrophe of an economy you most certainly helped to create, if only through your ongoing and ignominious cowardice. To be battered with begging emails about how oh-so broke you are is, frankly, a bridge too far. You have a job, email fiend, for now. Count your blessings.

Like me, Will Pitt -- whom I've known for almost the entire decade-plus I've blogged -- is mostly a Progressive Democrat, until the Democratic Party pushes him over the edge.  Which happens fairly regularly for me and apparently him, and particularly when they dump a daily avalanche of spam.  It's ten a day at minimum.  I suppose I should be glad that I get in a month what Pitts gets in a weekend -- 300 fundraising solicitation e-mails -- mostly going to the spam filter but then they change the sender's name and it sneaks past.  Begging, threatening, wheedling, cajoling, and yes, hints of suicidal desperation.

You know that 'motivating by fear' thing I've mentioned a few times?  This isn't how to do it.

Say what you will about the Republicans, but you cannot fault their tactics when it comes to winning. They are a minority in the United States, by the numbers, but they are running the show both politically and economically, and for one reason: they fire up their base. Sure, "firing up their base" means gay-bashing, and woman-hating, and Jesus-shouting, and war-mongering...but it works. In the fourteenth year of this brave new century, the party everyone hates and thinks is crazy, according to all the polls, is about to take over the Senate and increase its hold on the House.

It's not a magic trick, and it's not a mystery, why that is about to happen. The Republicans are acting like Republicans, and the people who support them will run through stone walls to vote for them. [...] If Democrats acted like Democrats, they might enjoy the same level of support from their own base...but instead, the people are presented with this eternally timid "Please Don't Hurt Me" coalition, afraid of the word "Liberal," and certainly addicted to the Wall Street/Defense/Petroleum money swelling their coffers. You ain't broke, despite that barrage of emails to the contrary.

Dead solid perfect.  Keep going, dude.

You support fracking while giving lip-service to climate change? You want Keystone XL approved, despite the fact that it will run the world's dirtiest fuel through our breadbasket and over our main aquifer in a pipeline that is dead-bang guaranteed to leak? You endorse the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement? You're satisfied with the barren lack of accounting meted to the Wall Street brigands who stole our future? You're down with a third war in Iraq?

Wait, you don't support all that? But you won't stand against it, because you're afraid of losing votes or campaign money?

My heroes.

There's a lot more, but Imma let him finish.

Come November, if the Democrats wind up flopping and flailing for an explanation as to why they got routed at the polls, let me offer a succinct reply: You stand for nothing. You are the Washington Generals to the Harlem Globetrotters. Everyone expects you to go down to defeat, because you always lay down, because you are paid to do so.

It doesn't have to be that way, but that's the way it is. When the midterms eat you alive, remember what I said. When you stand for nothing, you get nothing in return.

Write me an email about that.

If some "my party right or wrong" Democrats give me some rationalizations for this -- i.e. that spamming their supporters is what's necessary to be competitive with the GOP -- I'm going to laugh out loud in their face.

Update: Ramona's Voices makes the same point.

They won't get mentioned very often in other media...

Here are four Texas Greens on your ballot next month -- or on your ballot that you've received in the mailbox already: Kenneth Kendrick (Texas Agriculture Commissioner), Deb Shafto (Texas Comptroller), David Collins (Harris County Judge), and Martina Salinas (Texas Railroad Commissioner). Video is courtesy of Greenwatch TV, a local public access program airing weekly in Houston and surrounding areas.


Four Green Party of Texas Candidates (GWTV, 2014/10/01) from Art Browning on Vimeo.

Your chance to meet Kendrick and Salinas -- if you live in or near Houston -- is this weekend; they will appear together at a joint campaign fundraiser.  Details are here.

Yes. Texas will outlaw abortions if Greg Abbott is elected.

Closing clinics on the basis of "women's health" is Orwellian, to be certain.  But it's only the beginning.  The next step after that for the pro-life faction is to prosecute women who have abortions on a charge of murder, and to exercise capital punishment upon conviction.  Don't act so shocked.

A writer for National Review, (Kevin D.) Williamson likes to be the guy who will brashly express the crudest (and sometimes cruelest) version of his own team's deepest ideological commitments. Want an up-is-down revisionist take on American history that portrays the Republican Party as a far greater champion of civil rights than the Democrats? Williamson's your man. Looking for someone to mock a transgendered person pictured on the cover of Time magazine? Williamson will do it with unapologetic relish.

But none of that compares to what we got from Williamson earlier this week, when he took to Twitter to declare that he thinks women who have had abortions deserve to be executed for their actions. And not just executed in any old way, or by lethal injection, which is the standard in the 32 states that permit the death penalty. No, Williamson thinks women who have had abortions — along with the doctors, nurses, and hospital staff involved in the procedure — deserve to face death by hanging.

Now, the hanging bit is an almost perfect example of intentionally provocative rhetoric. (That's my preferred euphemism for "trolling.") Note how it adds an extra frisson of outrageousness to the proposal of capital punishment, given the way hanging has historically been deployed — as a uniquely public form of execution, used by governments as well as extrajudicial gangs of private citizens to inspire acute fear and intimidation. (Williamson might have just gone ahead and advocated beheadings, though of course, as another National Review author has recently argued, only a "purely evil" political organization could favor anything like that.)

Don't. act. so. shocked.

(T)hose who oppose abortion rights claim that the procedure amounts to the infliction of lethal violence against an innocent human being. If they truly believe that, then of course they also believe it should be prosecuted and punished like any other act of homicide. Indeed, the most remarkable thing about the Williamson controversy may be that his remarks surprised anyone at all.

Did you ask your favorite Republican what they thought of Williamson's proposal?  Perhaps you should, especially if there are going be any more debates you observe among candidates, and especially if they give you the chance to offer a query.

Repealing abortion rights at the federal level would just be the first step. It would be followed by an effort to outlaw abortion on a state-by-state basis. Then those involved in the illegal procedure would have to be prosecuted and punished. At the outer fringes of the possible, anti-abortion activists hope to see a Personhood Amendment protecting fetal life added to the Constitution, or perhaps the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly expanded to include the unborn.

While Republican presidential candidates are regularly asked if they endorse their party's platform in favor of repealing Roe, they are only rarely confronted with a follow-up question about whether they also believe that women who procure abortions and the medical professionals who provide them should be prosecuted and punished for murder — perhaps even for capital murder.

Since one typically comes to favor outlawing abortion only because of a belief in its homicidal character, it's hard to see how an opponent of abortion rights could do anything other than affirm a desire to see the murderers and their accessories brought to justice. It seems the only alternative would be to look hopelessly soft on crime.

Republicans in Texas, with supermajorities in the Lege and an eager new governor in Greg Abbott, will be the first state in the nation to ban abortion, and they will dare anyone to turn them back.  They have all the votes they need: five, on the US Supreme Court.  And then they will go after the murderers, those dastardly criminal women who would break the law and kill their babies anyway.

This is not an exaggeration.

As a reminder, motivating your voting base by fear is something Republicans do exceptionally well and exponentially better than Democrats.  It's also a very pointed note to a small handful of Democrats who think voting for Greens is a bigger problem than Democrats who vote for Republicans (more than 300,000 of them who voted in Florida in 2000, for anyone who doesn't wish to click the link).  Or for that matter, Democratically-leaning semi-sorta-sometimes voters who mostly don't.

Thank goodness Battleground Texas is working so furiously on the latter.  The former is a more internal failure, and might be remedied with some soul-searching, or perhaps even a 2016 presidential candidate along the lines of Bernie Sanders.  That's a discussion for later... about one month from now.

Fear and loathing and Democrats and Greens

Bumping into this again.

This, of course, is bullshit.  The page that posted it also linked to a Mother Jones article written by Erika Eichelberger, who failed in her reporting as well.  In context, with my emphasis in italics in the excerpt.

If Keister's plan had succeeded, it could have helped Reed—the Northeast regional chairman of the NRCC—by putting on the ballot a progressive candidate who would likely draw votes away from his expected Democratic opponent, county legislator Martha Robertson. But Keister messed up: Because he filed the Robbins petition late and got the other Green Party member's address wrong, neither Green will appear on the ballot for the June primary or the November general election, according to New York election officials.

Let's establish once again that votes are earned, not "siphoned off".  To believe this logical fallacy, you would have to believe another one, that voting populations are zero sum.  So that's pretty much the end of that argument.  But in the comments at the Facebook page, you will see several folks invoking the very stubborn urban legend that Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the 2000 election.

It makes me sad when I see Democrats so afraid of Republicans and losing elections that they go home and kick the cat, so to speak.

So I offered some thoughts on that page, and they promptly deleted them and blocked me.  Then they came over to my blog's Facebook page -- where I had the same comments up -- and posted this.

Baby Boomers and Senior Citizens Against Republicans & The Tea Party Brains and Eggs - We removed you from our page, as it clearly states at the top of our page that we are a "DEMOCRAT ONLY" page, and that we ban trolls. You claim to be progressive? Good luck with that one. Your arguments are comparable to Republican trolls. The only one you are fooling is yourself.

As some of you may know, I was a delegate to the Texas Democratic Party convention, and I did vote in both their primary and their runoff, so by every legal definition of the word, I am a Democrat.  The problem for Democrats -- as you have probably already figured out -- is not just that I don't swallow the party line, it's that I also offer a lot of criticism to Democrats about how they conduct themselves, handle their campaigns, what they stand for, and so on.  This genuinely irritates some people.

As a reminder, I consider myself an independent progressive.  It's accurate to describe me as an activist in both parties.  I am more committed to progressive philosophy than I am partisan politics.  So their blocking me on their page has more to do with their hostility to having their thinking challenged than it does their little rules, or anything else for that matter.  I will acknowledge that the label I have applied to myself creates a lot of cognitive dissonance in partisans, and furthermore that I make no attempt to ameliorate their discomfort.

But for the sake of what happened in this particular disagreement, let's review what "the Democrats" wrote: two logical fallacies, one unprovable premise, one now two several ad hominems, including one calling me an 'ignorant teabagger'.  Hilarious.

That's just no way to get independents and progressives to vote for you, Dems.  And I'm pretty sure that you don't have any votes to lose in 2014, in Texas or almost anywhere else in the country.  And let's also be clear about the verb being used here: you're losing them.  They are not being taken away from you.

Update: Socratic Gadfly wades in with some additional inconvenient truths.

Ebola and Texas

It's too cheap a shot to take at our neighbors to the north about the way the folks at Texas Presbyterian Hospital handled the patient with Ebola who went there and was sent home with antibiotics.  After all, international flights from western Africa arrive daily in Houston.  And Atlanta, and Miami, and New York and Los Angeles and Chicago. 

Overburdened first-line healthcare specialists in the emergency room are responsible for maximizing profit in equivalent measure to the suits in the executive office, no matter which American city's hospitals we speak of.

It is not, on the other hand, unfair to point out that there are lots of people without health insurance who do not see a doctor until they are wildly ill, because their state's leaders refuse to extend them even the most nominal healthcare coverage.

Do we turn away poor folks with Ebola because they don't have insurance?  Of course we don't... because they might infect the children whose parents do have health coverage.  When a third-world problem becomes a first-world problem, then everybody gets excited.

There might be a better way to stop the spread of a contagion than knee-jerk panic reactions.  But that would require planning, and thought, and then taking the proper action.

Not to mention some measure of compassion for those less fortunate.

If there's one thing I know for absolute certain, those are not qualities possessed by the majority of the current leadership of Texas.  And the other certainty is that our once-every-two-or-four-years opportunity to change that is coming up quickly on the calendar.

Texas Lyceum: Abbott 49, Davis 40

From the press release:

A recent poll conducted by the Texas Lyceum, the premiere statewide nonprofit, nonpartisan leadership group, shows that among likely voters Republican Attorney General Greg Abbott is ahead of Democratic State Senator Wendy Davis by nine percentage points.

The killshot...

[Abbott holds] slight leads with both Independents (38 percent to 32 percent) and with women (46 percent to 44 percent).

It's worse for Leticia Van De Putte (47-33, Patrick) and David Alameel (48-30, Cornyn).

This isn't exactly the boost the top of the ticket was hoping for.  If the debates over the past couple of days move the needle favorably, it will have to be reflected in the next poll, YouGov or some other polling outfit working the field at this time.  Time is simply running short for the Democrats to stem this tide.

Here's the link to the executive summary, the full results, and the crosstabs, as well as the main page where those links are all together.

Update: Gadfly has more.

Smackdown

Chris Hooks at the Observer has the best take.

If you only have time to watch one of the three major debates this election cycle, you should make it tonight’s debate in Dallas. If you’re pulling for Wendy Davis to do well, you’ll enjoy it. But it’s worth watching because something strange happened tonight: Like the sky opening up after a monsoon season of turgid talking points, Wendy Davis and Greg Abbott actually took each other on tonight, to a certain extent. And against all odds, something approximating a discussion about policy took place.

[...]

Davis and Abbott grappled with each other on two wide fronts—the first, over ethics issues. Davis was asked about her legal work, which she rebuffed and went through the list of accumulated attack lines about Abbott’s tenure as AG. (She gave a stronger refutation of the conflict-of-interest charge after she was pressed.)

But when Abbott was asked (at about 19:45 in the video) about accusations his office helped hide incompetence and mismanagement with Gov. Perry’s Texas Enterprise Fund, he didn’t handle it very well. He offered that the recently issued audit of the fund didn’t single him out for criticism. “From the beginning of my campaign I’ve been questioning this very fund,” he said. (Perhaps, one suspects, because he knew how badly it was being run.) He tried to turn the question back to Davis, but she beat it back forcefully. As to the question of why Abbott’s office helped hide non-existing TEF applications from reporters, he couldn’t really answer.

The AG did not seem as prepared for tonight's skirmish, was knocked off balance several times, and the moderators -- while very aggressive in going after both candidates -- did not fluster Davis to the extent that they did Abbott. To say that this questioning format was an improvement over the first debate understates its value.

Many more of Davis' punches landed than they did a week ago, Abbott was less successful in batting them away, and the moderators piled on him.  And he couldn't handle it.

On the issues, Abbott and Davis made stark distinctions. Neither could really answer a question about how they’d fund their education plans, though Abbott at least had a dollar figure for student spending that made it appear that he had given it some thought. But Davis hit Abbott hard. It was ludicrous, she said, for Abbott to keep saying he would make Texas schools No. 1 while defending huge cuts to funding and refusing to commit to providing more resources.

“Mr. Abbott, you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth,” she said. “You say you want to make Texas No. 1 in education. You cannot accomplish that goal without making the appropriate investments.”

But the best part of the debate might have been the discussion over Medicaid expansion—at about 29:30 in the video above. Medicaid expansion is, quite literally, a matter of life and death, one of the most serious issues in the race. If Medicaid isn’t expanded in Texas, a quantifiable number of people will suffer and die—unnecessarily. But it hasn’t come up in the race as much as it might.

Abbott said he’d ask the feds to give Texas its Medicaid dollars as a block grant to be spent as the state sees fit, which few think is a realistic possibility. He assured listeners that he “wouldn’t bankrupt Texas” by imposing on Texas the “overwhelming Obamacare disaster.”

Davis laid out a forceful argument for Medicaid expansion. “I have to laugh when I hear Mr. Abbott talk about bankrupting Texas,” she said. “Right now Texans are sending their hard-earned tax dollars to the IRS, $100 billion of which will never come back to work for us in our state unless we bring it back. As governor, I will it bring it back. Greg Abbott’s plan is for you to send that tax money to California and New York.” Abbott’s rebuttal left Davis smiling from ear to ear. The whole fairly long exchange is worth watching.

The debate was pretty much everything the Davis campaign could have wanted.

Later today we should finally see the Texas Lyceum poll we've been waiting for.  Lyceum is nonpartisan, independent, and old-school; they survey adult citizens mostly by landline (which suggests an inherent Republican bias; we'll see).  If it shows Davis any closer than the closest she's been -- eight points behind -- then she'll get a much-needed shot in the arm.

More on the faceoff from the Dallas Morning Views (unimpressed) and Egberto Willies (partisan, impressed).  One excerpt from the second link...

The best illustration of Greg Abbott being beholding to the insurance industry came with a question about home insurance being too high. He could not say the rates were too high. Instead he said he did not look at the numbers. Wendy Davis said categorically that the rates were too high. She slammed Greg Abbott on his insurance industry relationship. “I don’t cotton to people who sell out our hard working Texans for the interest of big insurance companies,” Wendy Davis said. “Mr. Abbott on the other hand has taken enormous contributions from them.”

She went on to say that Greg Abbott most recently advocated a settlement with Farmers Insurance. The judge accused him of laying down to the insurance company and refused to accept the settlement because he was selling out the claimants.

Abbott had one moment when it looked as if he would turn the tables on Davis: in the anticipated discussion of the scandal swirling around the Texas Enterprise Fund, the attorney general accused the senator of profiting from an application (that didn't exist, as we know) to the TEF by virtue of the title company she once worked for having been involved with a sporting goods store (Cabela's, or 'Cabela' as Abbott refers to it) opening in Fort Worth.  She successfully cracked back again: "You're lying, and you know you are lying."  And explained precisely how he was lying.

It seemed to this watcher as if Greg Abbott thought he was gleefully springing a trap, only to have it snap back around his neck, a la Elmer Fudd.

Game over.  Greg Abbott's lifetime of corruption and fraud was exposed and laid bare.  We'll have to wait and see how much it slows his march roll to the Governor's Mansion.

The HouChron also fact-checked.  Also not good for Abbott.

Update: More from Trail Blazers on both the debate and the Lyceum poll.

Fight Night II

Wendy Davis has one more chance to share a debate stage with the Republican front-runner in the race for Texas governor, and if the recent past is any guide, she’ll use most of her hour in Dallas to crank up the heat on Attorney General Greg Abbott.

The debate, which gets under way at 8 p.m. Tuesday, is the second of two televised encounters. At the last debate, held Sept. 19 in Edinburg, Davis issued one attack after another on Abbott, who mostly ignored her accusations and stuck to his rehearsed lines.

It will be interesting to see if Davis can pin Abbott down in some way about his most recent scandal.  He's been awfully slippery so far.

The candidates to succeed Gov. Rick Perry head toward their final debate Tuesday locked in a tussle over one of his signature programs, an economic incentives fund engulfed by a scandal whose political fallout widened over the weekend.

Wendy Davis, the Democratic nominee for governor, on Monday called for an independent investigation into Republican rival Greg Abbott's role in the controversy, which began Thursday with the release of a scathing report by state auditors that found the Texas Enterprise Fund doled out $222 million to 11 entities that did not submit formal applications or were not required to create jobs. Democrats accuse Abbott, the attorney general at the time, of turning a blind eye while accepting campaign contributions from people with ties to grant recipients and covering up the fact that they did not apply for the money.

The revelations have emboldened Democrats on the eve of the debate in Dallas, the stakes of which already were high given Davis' underdog status and the few opportunities she has had to engage Abbott face to face.

The first of these, and the one last night between the two lite gov contenders, reveal the debates for what they are: a big pep rally for the base voters of the two parties.  That's important, but does nothing to expand the electorate, especially when the Republicans only speak in the language the most deranged of their base understands.

Watch for this news.

A new independent poll on the governor’s race by the Texas Lyceum, scheduled for release Wednesday, should provide some clues about where the governor’s race is headed with about a month to go until the election.

Update: While we wait for their numbers on statewide races, here are some appetizers.

Nearly a third of Texans say issues related to the border are among the most important problems facing the state today, far outweighing other concerns, according a poll released Tuesday.

Eighteen percent of Texans who were surveyed picked immigration as the top issue, while 13 percent chose border security. Education came in second with 11 percent of Texans calling it the most important problem, according to the survey, which was conducted Sept. 11-25 by the Texas Lyceum, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization.

When it came to the top issue facing the country, 15 percent of respondents ranked the economy first and 8 percent each said immigration and national security/terrorism. Only 2 percent called the economy the most important problem facing Texas.

With respect to both Abbott's and Dan Patrick's opposition to abortion in cases of rape or incest...

The survey asked respondents to elaborate on their views on abortion, an issue that has been repeatedly raised in the governor’s race. Fifty-four percent of Texans said a woman should be able to have an abortion if there is a “strong chance of a serious defect in the baby,” circumstances similar to those revealed in Democrat Wendy Davis’ memoir.

Abortion has also emerged as an issue in the governor’s race as the Davis campaign accuses Republican Greg Abbott of opposing it even in cases of rape or incest. The poll found 68 percent of Texans believe abortion should be possible under those circumstances.

We should also have another YouGov poll out shortly as well.

Update: In a related development, Abbott has been forbidden from saying 'Obama' in tonight's debate, as a matter of public safety.  You can be certain he will disavow responsibility for any collateral damage.  And Wayne Slater has five things to watch for.

#LtGovDebate: Reality check

Something is see-sawing.

It was lively and contentious, but just as devoid of actual debate as the first Davis-Abbott matchup.

In the only scheduled debate in their race for lieutenant governor, state Sens. Dan Patrick and Leticia Van de Putte faced off on Monday night in a lively exchange that displayed their divergent positions on everything from health care and immigration to school finance and taxes.

Both candidates played offense: Patrick, R-Houston, attempted to portray Van de Putte, D-San Antonio, as “out of step” with Texas voters. Van de Putte used the back-and-forth to try to pin Patrick down on votes he'd taken on cuts to public education. But one of the biggest points of contention in the hour-long showdown in Austin was over the state’s tax structure.

Patrick recently called for reducing the state’s dependence on the property tax to fund public schools and relying on the state’s sales tax instead. On Monday, Van de Putte used Patrick's position to argue that he would raise the sales tax, which she said would hurt businesses and consumers. Patrick sought to clarify his proposal, saying he would only support increasing the sales tax “by a penny or two” to compensate for reduced revenue from property taxes.

“There's two people standing on this stage, and I’m the only one that doesn’t want to raise your sales taxes,” Van de Putte said. “To burden Texas businesses and families with a sales tax increase ... well, that’s not being pro-business.”

When you have a spare hour, watch it and see for yourself.

The live-Tweet stream was entertaining, and Forrest Wilder's live-blogging also.  Here's your take-away.

It can’t be stressed enough: Dan Patrick sounds about as radical as he ever has. By comparison, LVDP sounds like a moderate Republican, I think what Patrick would call a RINO.

Patrick took a similar approach as Abbott did a week ago, throwing out red meat to the Tea Party base of the GOP. There's no attempt whatsoever to reach swing voters or independents or even employ that tired "across the aisle" cliche'.  He fear-mongered over illegals coming over the border with hepatitis, declared he would swap a state sales tax increase for a property tax cut, bragged about cutting education spending, and stood firm in the eyes of the Lord against abortion even in the cases of rape or incest.  As well as gay marriage.

He was right about one thing: the choice is as clear as it ever has been.

Debate Week

Tonight it's LVDP versus Patrick; tomorrow night is round two of Davis-Abbott.

Find a watch party, a list of those outlets telecasting, or watch online.  Follow the geek fighting on Twitter at #TexasDebates or #ltgovdebate.

Update: And just announced... Cornyn vs. Alameel on October 25.