Brainy endorsements: Henry Cooper

Henry Cooper is the Green running against Jessica Farrar in Texas House District 148. There is no Republican or Libertarian in the contest.

Here's why he is challenging the Texas House Democratic Caucus chair, a well-respected -- and usually progressive -- Democrat.

I’m a native Houstonian, married and have two children. I’m a machinist by profession and have worked for more than 20 years in the gas and oil manufacturing industry. In my line of work, I’ve seen how oil companies have grown and profited through the years, and yet the good old jobs have vanished, outsourced, or transferred to subcontractors to lower the cost of labor.

Yet, despite the steady growth in the private sector, we are told that there is not enough revenue for the public services or schools and that the state is in an ‘economic crisis’. I don’t think so!

I am asking for your vote because I stand for:

1. Promoting the development of new jobs and solve the revenue ‘crisis’ of our state, especially when we live in Texas, one of the richest and most profitable states in the United States.
2. Impeding in the next legislature's funding cuts to the education budget and instead invest in our children’s education to prepare them for the challenges ahead (prepare them with a high quality education).
3. Enforcing fiscal responsibility on the multi-billion dollar corporations that are not paying their fair share of taxes by eliminating loopholes that allow them to evade their fiscal duties. If you are paying your fair share, so should they!
4. Developing and promoting alternative technologies to the carbon-based fuels with the scientific participation of some of our best universities in the state. We can start changing the fossil-fuel consumption and increase the wealth of all Texans.
5.  Increasing the capacity, delivery and quality of medical services across all our communities.
6. Supporting our children’s vision to pursue a higher education by making their college education affordable across all disciplines, and particularly medicine and nursing studies.

I am asking for your vote to be a state representative that is not only willing to present solutions that will benefit all Texans, but will also lobby among the electorate of those representatives that don’t have in mind the best interest of our state and its residents. A legislator is not limited to represent his or her constituency but works for the benefit for all Texans.

Here's a bit more, also in his own words.



Más sobre esto de Henry en Español.



Henry is holding a meet-and-greet tomorrow, Saturday, August 18, at the Oak Forest Library, from 2-4 pm. I encourage residents of the district to introduce themselves. You can also see Henry's Facebook page for more, and donate to Cooper's campaign here.

Here's the part where some Democrats are going to want to know why I passed over Farrar, the kind of Democrat I can usually support.

Keep in mind also that I not only, like Cooper, have a great deal of respect Farrar personally and for her long list of accomplishments, but further that I accepted her invitation to ride to Austin on her bus -- at her expense -- for the opening day of the Texas legislative session in 2011.  Here's my post about that. I and the rest of my TPA blog brethren endorsed Farrar in 2008.

Farrar has, in my opinion, lost her way a bit as a progressive. Cooper notes incorrectly in the first video above that Farrar supports the Keystone XL pipeline; she does not, according to a staff member in Austin I spoke with shortly before posting this. Though I found it extremely difficult to get that opposition on the record.

This letter, signed not only by Rep. Farrar but also Cooper and many other progressive elected officials and environmental activists over one year ago, requested that Secretary Hillary Clinton utilize all legal and environmental checks and balances, including public hearings, before moving forward on Keystone XL. Hearings were held; no official approval has been granted by the State Department, and construction of the Keystone XL pipeline quietly proceeds apace. Without noticeable opposition, I might add, from anyone except a few community activists.

Farrar has also stood behind Harris County Sheriff Adrian Garcia and his well-documented and vigorous efforts to execute the Obama administration's controversial Secure Communities program. She also -- very much a rarity for a Texas House member, much less the caucus chair -- made a public point of endorsing the Corporate Democrat in the CD-07 primary.

That was the last straw for me, personally.

Farrar had a fairly close go of it but only in relative terms in 2010, the year of the Red Tea Tide, and no Republican stepped up this year... probably on the thought that 41% was their high water mark. Cooper is only likely to expose whatever vulnerability the Democratic Leader has on her left as a result of abandoning a few precious progressive values, but my feeling is that she's in for a bigger challenge in two years if she keeps forgetting to dance with the ones that brung her.

Thanks for all you've done, Representative Farrar, but there is a better choice in November 2012; someone who comes a little closer to representing working people and progressives in the Texas House. I hope you get the message he's sending.

Cockblock the Vote

Considering our recent discussions on the topic, The Daily Show's take last night is cogent and wicked.

[...] Jon Stewart tore into Republican-backed voter identification laws in Pennsylvania and Ohio, which he branded as two different attempts at “suppressing Democratic turnout.”

“Voter fraud is an enormous issue with more than exactly 10 documented cases of it in the entire country alone,” Stewart deadpanned, “just since the beginning of the millennium. That’s .000000284% of all votes. So you can see why Pennsylvania would want to enact a voter ID law that one study claims could potentially disenfranchise around 9% of the entire Pennsylvanian electorate. But that’s the price you pay to prevent something that doesn’t happen.”

“Pennsylvania has voted Democratic in the last five presidential elections,” Stewart pointed out, “leaning toward Obama in this election. It’s not like voter ID law is blatantly designed to skew that result. Right, State House Republican majority leader that designed it?”

He then played tape of that Pennsylvania legislator, Mike Turzai, saying, “Voter ID, which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania. Done.”

Stewart then went after Ohio Republicans’ attempt to restrict early voting hours on Democratic counties but extending early voting hours in Republican ones. “Are you kidding me?” he exclaimed. “All Americans who want equal access to the vote take two steps forward. Not so fast, people who live on Martin Luther King Boulevard South.”

Stewart then played a clip of an Ohio Republican legislator defending the rules by saying, “We try to make it easy but we can’t, you know. I say we’re not 7-11. We can’t stay open 24/7 and let anybody vote by any rule that they want to.”

“Surely we can’t expect our constitutionally guaranteed voting rights to meet the same high standards as a combination gas station/convenience store,” Stewart mocked.

“Two states, two completely different means of suppressing Democratic turnout,” he concluded. “Here is the one thing they have in common: the mechanism of the vote are in the hands of partisan elected officials.”

There's video of the whole thing at Mediaite.

What I never understand is why nobody even mentions Texas. Like the ultrasound bill and trans-vaginal wands, which was enough to ruin Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell's chances to be Mitt Romney's running mate, Texas is like a whole other (fascist) country in the national discussion.

Unlike Pennsylvania and Ohio, Texas' own Photo ID law is so egregious that it is stymied by both the courts and the DOJ, while in Houston we suffer from the Teabagger takeover of our bifurcated election system (registration and elections).  The landslide of Democrats elected via voter fraud in Harris County is, of course, the reason for the birth of the King Street Patriots, now a national organization comprised of Caucasian Christian warriors on a mission to prevent anyone who doesn't look like them -- or think like me -- from voting.

And neither the Republicans in charge of the mess, nor most Democrats, want to change that.

Do you still think voting for either a Democrat or a Republican without considering the other options is going to effect change? It seems to me that would be the textbook definition of insanity.

And they call ME crazy for wishing this was the reality.

Libertarians tour Texas

Presidential hopeful Gary Johnson and US Senate candidate John Jay Myers are taking a Texas swing.

[...] Myers will join Governor Johnson for a meet and greet and breakfast in Dallas (8/15-8/16), a book signing and dinner in Austin (8/17), a meet and greet and VIP reception in San Antonio (8/18), and a reception and open mic night in Houston (8/19). Myers will also be stopping at East Beach in Galveston (8/19), and visiting East Texas for a public  barbecue in Tyler (8/21), and dinner in Mount Pleasant (8/21) during an extended part of the trip.

As Republicans feel the splitting hangover of their Mitt Romney/Ted Cruz rage binge, the Libertarians are going to start looking better and better, particularly to all of those non-TeaBagging conservatives. Myers is fire-branding...

“The Republican primary in Texas was a contest between the banks and the oil companies, and the banks won.” ... “Ted Cruz is not the outsider people think they voted for. Cruz worked for the federal government, and he also advised George W. Bush’s campaign on domestic policy. And how did Bush’s domestic policy of bank bailouts and stimulus work out? Ted Cruz’s government resume does not match his claims to be an establishment outsider.”

Myers questioned Cruz’s commitment to liberty: “Cruz expresses pride in his family’s escape to the U.S., and yet maintains a platform hostile to immigrants. He claims to support freedom and yet wants government to dictate whom you can marry and what substances peaceful people put in their bodies. And he follows the same foreign policy doctrine of entangling alliances our Founding Fathers warned us about.”

Myers condemned the false choice presented to Republican voters: “During the primary, the Republicans were given a choice between a millionaire former CIA officer who runs an oil and gas company, or a rich establishment lawyer who is literally in bed with a vice president of Goldman Sachs, the bank that was by far the largest beneficiary of the Bush-Obama bailouts through its insurer AIG. How do you think the pillow talk will go when Goldman Sachs needs $100 billion more after the next market meltdown?”

You might fall for that tough talk if Myers weren't more devoted to Ayn Rand than even Paul Ryan. Democratic nominee Paul Sadler is hoping he can capture Republican leakage from Cruz, but that has been shown time and again to be a fallacy. But since this post is about the Libs, let's return to Johnson, who articulates the message a little better than Myers.



Now that's damned solid and effective. I don't buy it, of course, but a lot of people will, and lot more should. And there's plenty of additional evidence that the Liberts have an excellent opportunity to put a dent in GOP futures this fall. First, the Austin Chron:

Historically, Libertarians have been perceived as a thorn in the GOP's side, occasionally nudging elections toward the Democrats by pulling away some right-wing voters. In 2008 the GOP actively courted the Libertarian Party of Texas and asked them to pull candidates from the ballot in marginal seats (see "State GOP Fears Libertarian Upset," Aug. 8, 2008). Locally, Libertarians could become a factor in two key House races. Republican Paul Workman survived a bruising primary in House District 47, and Dem Chris Frandsen may be hoping that the addition of Libertarian Nick Tanner – running against Workman for being "pro-Amnesty, anti-free market" – may increase his chances. Next door in HD 48, Democrat Donna Howard narrowly squeaked out a multi-recount victory in 2010 and, while she is still favored over self-proclaimed moderate Republican Robert Thomas, Libertarian Joe Edgar could help her by further splitting the GOP base.

I posted over three months ago about the Libs and the Weed Bloc. Here's a bit more about their electoral chances from the Johnson campaign itself, via Third Party Politics.

Libertarian Presidential candidate Gov. Gary Johnson is polling at 5.3% nationwide. (JZ Analytics/Washington Times).

But look at the numbers when he’s included in statewide polls against Obama and Romney. 13% in New Mexico. 9% in Arizona. 7% in Colorado. 7% in New Hampshire. 8% in Montana. (PPP and others)

Governor Johnson’s poll numbers – and his votes this November – may be the critical factor in “Tipping Point” or battleground states like North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, Nevada, and Colorado – where Obama and Romney are 1% to 6% apart. Mitt Romney needs these 5 states, these 74 Electoral votes to win the White House.

North Carolina and Virginia voted Republican 7 out the last 8 Presidential races. Florida and Colorado voted Republican in 6 out of the last 8. Nevada voted Republican in 5 out of the last 8. All 5 of these battleground states voted for Barack Obama in 2008.

But the one thing that will really make a tremendous difference is if Johnson and Green Party nominee Jill Stein are included in the fall's presidential debates. Here's something provocative to read about that. You will want to read the whole thing -- especially if you're unfamiliar with the 15% polling threshold to qualify to participate -- but here's the last few grafs as moneyshot.

Getting on ballots across the country requires time, organization, support and money. That should be difficult enough to weed out the riff-raff, but if you wanted to make it even harder to get an invite to the debates (but not impossible, which for all intents and purposes, the current system is), why not amend the third criterion to read: 15% of public support --OR-- the candidate is eligible for federal matching funds and has received the nomination of their respective party?

Under this system, the 2012 presidential debates might look like this:

• Barack Obama (Democrat)
• Mitt Romney (Republican)
• Gary Johnson (Libertarian)
• Jill Stein (Green)

Something tells me that this debate would touch on issues more thoughtful than who the real "outsourcer-in-chief" is. And considering that federal tax dollars are, in part, funding the campaigns of Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, it would be nice to hear them talk.

It's been 20 years since a third-party candidate has been invited to debate Republican and Democratic presidential nominees; we all know how political discourse has played out since then. Sometimes, it makes sense to look at the system that is in place and ask ourselves: Is this really the best way to do things? I realize that I'm not the first to say this, but I think we can do better.

If you wish to petition the Commission on Presidential Debates to include Gov. Johnson and Dr. Stein in the debates, go here. As John DeFeo notes in his opening...

The U.S. presidential debates are like a "Best Beer in America" contest where only Bud Light and Coors Light are invited. Of course, there's nothing inherently wrong with these beers, they satisfy millions of Americans. But to claim one of them is the "best" while ignoring the hundreds of independent American breweries churning out some of the world's most unique and innovative suds -- well, that seems wrong.

Not just 'seems', John.

Four More Beers

I think we finally have proof that President Obama is not Muslim.

Yes, that is a draft beer and a pork chop, according to eyewitness accounts at the Iowa state fair.

 Back in 2008, the slow-sipping Obama found himself on the losing side of the beer-drinking battle, since Hillary Clinton knocked them back with gusto, sometimes with a shot of whiskey. The President was forced to pretend that beer didn’t matter. “Around election time, the candidates can’t do enough. They’ll promise you anything, give you a long list of proposals and even come around, with TV crews in tow, to throw back a shot and a beer,” he told crowds then, trying to undercut Clinton’s chugging advantage.

Yes, Obama has learned quite a bit since the arugula 'scandal'.

In 2012, however, Obama is determined to win the beer vote, a task made easier by the fact that his opponent, Mitt Romney, never drinks as a matter of religious principle. On his three-day trip through Iowa, beer was Obama’s ubiquitous prop, repeatedly offered up by the president and his aides as proof of his relatability—and more indirectly an attempt at reinforcing the otherness of Romney for regular folks.

The president didn’t just order beer before cameras, which he did at two different stops. He traveled across the state with a bus stocked with White House-brewed beer, and even handed out a bottle to a patron at a coffee shop in Knoxville. His campaign press secretary briefed reporters on the beer consumption of senior staff at the Iowa state fair—two Bud Lights apiece. A press gaggle detailed some of the attributes of the White House brewery. And Obama talked about brews, over and again.

By the time he made it to Waterloo Tuesday night, after another stop at a Cedar Falls pub for a 7 p.m. Bud Light, the strategy bordered on self-parody. “Yesterday, I went to the State Fair and I had a pork chop and a beer. And it was good,” Obama said, by way of introduction. “Today I just had a beer. I didn’t get the pork chop.  But the beer was good, too.”

Even with scant evidence that the president was actually drinking any of the many beers he was seen ordering, holding, and handing out from his home-brewed stash, the optics are still very much in his favor. Especially when Mitt Romney is having a campaign event at a Miami juice bar -- no alcoholic or caffeinated options on the menu -- owned by a convicted cocaine dealer.

I remember a time in the recent past when Republicans were pretty good at these presidential campaigns. Karl Rove must be cringing in agony.

Brainy endorsements: Alfred Molison for HD 131, GC Molison for SBOE

Alas, whatever fences may have been mended with my Democratic friends by yesterday's endorsement may be undone today.

That's the way the Communist cookie crumbles.

HOUSTON – For the first time a Communist Party in the United States has formally endorsed two Green Party members for public office. The Houston Communist Party (www.houstoncommunistparty.com ) formally endorsed and will support Alfred Molison Jr. for Texas House of Representatives, District 131, and G.C. Molison for Texas Board of Education District 6, as Green Party candidates. Both candidates will face Libertarian, Democratic, and Republican opponents on the ballot November 6, 2012.

I join them in this endorsement. Alfred Molison Jr.'s opponent in HD-131 is Democratic incumbent Dr. Alma Allen, who beat back a primary challenge from former Houston city council member Wanda Adams in July. GC Molison is challenging 3 others in SBOE -6, including Democrat Traci Jensen.

“I was surprised and very happy upon hearing the news of their endorsement by the Houston Communist Party. Usually, the CPUSA (www.cpusa.org ) mandates that members support and work for Democrats for public office. As far as I can tell this is the first and only endorsement by a Communist Party club of any Green Party candidates in the entire United States,” said Alfred Molison III, manager of his parents' election campaigns.

“I want to publicly thank the members and leadership of the Houston Communist Party for (their endorsements). We look forward to working together to improve the lives of working class people, better educate all the children of Texas and maintain and improve the entire environment for everyone.”

Molison III has served in the past as co-chair of the Harris County Green Party as well as former co-chair of the Green Party of Texas, and has previously run for municipal office himself in the city elections in 2009 as part of the Progressive Coalition. Both of his parents are retired and have joined the fray as candidates in this cycle in order, in their words, to expand upon the Ten Key Values of the Green Party.

For her part, Dr. Allen entered the statehouse after defeating a thoroughly disgraced Rep. Ron Wilson in 2004, and has met token opposition, if any at all, since that time. Adams' challenge in the primary, won by Allen 60-40, has been the closest contest during that period.

Dr. Allen has done little to distinguish herself during her tenure. In her three four terms in the House, her claim to fame is an anti-spanking bill, as well as her bipartisan efforts to get that bill passed with the help of a Republican colleague. Laudable, if low profile. The Chron's by-now-notorious and disgraced editorial board praised her in their primary endorsement, noting Speaker Joe Straus' appointment of Dr. Allen to the legislature's joint committee to study public school financing.

I just don't know how much more study that topic requires at this point. I believe everybody understands what the problems are, and the Republican-dominated Lege will very likely keep cutting money from the education budget. So Dr. Allen -- with all of her years of education experience and record of bipartisan cooperation -- is probably on that committee for the sole purpose of rubberstamping whatever it is the GOP is going to do in 2013.

Oh, one other thing: Dr. Allen came out early and endorsed the Corporate Democrat in CD-07. She obviously likes her fellow Democrats swimming in marinara sauce. That of course would be the plutocrat variety of rojo, and not the populist-flavored Red.

The candidates whom Mrs. Molison is challenging in November, likewise, are fine people and capable contenders. Marc Campos, the Latino political consultant with all the answers, has Jensen as his client. So we can expect a good push in the Latino community for Jensen.

For my part, I thought that Latino voters would have gone with the Latina and the progressive in the primary, Patty Quintana-Nilsson. So perhaps Campos' vaunted secret-key-to-Latino-turnout was in play, and if we're lucky, will finally be revealed to the benefit of all.

While we wait for the Democratic establishment candidates to reveal themselves as dedicated servants for the working class in their respective districts, we can know that there are already two candidates who are waiting for them.

“We are happy to support and endorse these candidates for public office who will fight for social justice to include economic justice for the working people of their districts”, said James Thompson, Chair of the Houston Communist Party. “This will serve as a good example of cooperation between Reds and Greens in an effort to fight for the interests of working people”, he said.

“I have to admit to having had some prejudice against Communists," Molison III said. "However, when I went to meetings with the Houston Communist Party, I was surprised to find a tremendous amount of genuine freedom of speech, democracy and differences of opinion and procedure. It wasn’t divided. It was respectful and broad. I think most people would enjoy meetings of the Houston Communist Party. They aren’t fighting for the doctrine and theology of Marxism. They’re working together to figure out how to help people and the world. Just like the Greens and the Green Party, they haven’t been bought out by the wealthy and the big corporations.”

And there you have it. I just hope nobody still wonders why I have broken out of the Blue straight-jacket of one-party thinking. I encourage all free thinkers to join me.

Once you have scooped your brains up off the floor and arranged them carefully back into your cranial cavity, that is.

Brainy endorsements: Nile Copeland

The first in a continuing series of endorsements of November candidates for progressive voters.

Nile Copeland is my favorite candidate running for any office in 2012. And when you read this, you'll understand why.

TODAY I see stories in the news like:

• Texas Judge Beats Daughter
• Texas Judge Caught Sleeping in Court
• Federal Judge Sends Racist Email
• Texas Judge on Trial After Execution Plea Refused
• Texas Judge Sentences Honor Student to Jail for Missing School
• Texas Judge Facing Felony Bribery Charges
• Texas Judge Reprimanded for Improperly Jailing Man

 I am running for the Texas First Court of Appeals because I am tired of apologizing for the legal system. It's time to fix a broken judiciary. It's time to put your foot down and say NO MORE BS. Judges have a responsibility to uphold the time honored position and see that the law is fair, impartial and to act professionally and with integrity. We should be proud of our Texas Judges. If you read a story where a judge does something you think is BS, please send it to me.

Here's more about Nile if you need it. I didn't. Truthfully I would be inclined to support nearly anybody whose slogan was "No More BS", but as we know politicians -- certainly judicial candidates -- do not typically use language so blunt in ther campaigns.

Needless to say, I only sat with Copeland a couple of times before I realized he was the man. I just wish he was running for Texas Supreme Court. Or governor. Maybe he will.

But for now we need to elect him to the First Court of Appeals, where currently only Republicans serve with one exception. Because the counties served by the First -- Austin, Brazoria, Chambers, Colorado, Fort Bend, Galveston, Grimes, Harris, Waller, and Washington -- include a number of rural ones where many voters aren't so discriminating, it is vital that we put the word out that Copeland is the man for the Herculean task of reforming the judicial system in Texas, beginning at the appellate level.

So e-mail this post to your friends using the link below, and to the Democratic chairs in the counties listed above -- here's a list of county chairs with their e-mail addresses -- and make a contribution if you can to Copeland's campaign. You can also like his Facebook page and follow him on Twitter.

He is as good as it gets for Texas progressives.