Borris Miles disappoints me, again

I didn't particularly like it when he played art censor, and I don't think too highly of his gunslinger mentality, but both incidents were surprisingly quite popular with the majority of his constituency.

But this -- if the police report is accurate, if these accusations are not the politically motivated exaggerations of a group of people associated with former HD-146 Rep. Al Edwards -- is almost too much:

The Harris County District Attorney's Office is investigating a complaint that state Rep. Borris Miles, D-Houston, made threats and brandished a gun at a holiday party last month.

According to witnesses, Miles entered a St. Regis Hotel ballroom uninvited, confronting guests, displaying a pistol and forcibly kissing another man's wife.

There's more, and it gets worse for Miles. He's going to have to do some damage control, if there's any that can be done.

I have blogged extensively about Miles, my support of him as a former precinct chair in his district, attending his swearing-in ceremony in Austin, and the ridiculousness of his predecessor, confirmed Craddick acolyte Edwards. Remember one of the things he's famous for, the too-sexy high school cheerleaders in the state? Jon Stewart is here to remind you:



There will be more of this story to be told and re-told between now and March 4th, when Democratic voters will determine which of the two men gets to represent the 146th in Austin (the district is about 90% blue, so it's all about the primary). For now, and provided there isn't further embarrassment to be endured from Miles, I believe he's still the right choice for the Texas House.

But it's getting a little shaky for me, and certainly many others.

John Edwards and the people he scares

Ask corporate lobbyists which presidential contender is most feared by their clients and the answer is almost always the same -- Democrat John Edwards. ...

One business lobbyist, who asked not to be named, said Edwards "has gone to this angry populist, anti-business rhetoric that borders on class warfare ... He focuses dislike of special interests, which is out there, on business." Another lobbyist said an Edwards presidency would be "a disaster" for his well-heeled industrialist clients. ...

"My sense is that Obama would govern as a reasonably pragmatic Democrat ... I think Hillary is approachable. She knows where a lot of her funding has come from, to be blunt," said Greg Valliere, chief political strategist at Stanford Group Co., a market and policy analysis group.

But Edwards, Valliere said, is seen as "an anti-business populist" and "a trade protectionist who is quite unabashed about raising taxes."

"I think his regulatory policies, as well as his tax policies, would be viewed as a threat to business," he said.

He instigates fear and loathing in the DLC as well:

As would be expected, the two gentlemen from the Democratic Leadership Council on a conference call today told reporters they’re very confident in their party’s chances of reclaiming the White House, they’re happy that substantive issues are being discussed…

And then Al From, the D.L.C. founder, said he was “very happy about the two candidates” Americans are considering.

Only two candidates?

Our ears perked up as we listened on.

“This is a really hard choice, really, for Democratic voters because they like both candidates,” said Mr. From. “For me, I don’t see that going to be a problem. I think in the end, Senator Obama’s appeal that he’s made very firmly and directly to independent voters, and Senator Clinton’s appeal to the forgotten middle class are going to add up to a very smashing Democratic majority in the fall.”

“This is not uncommon in primaries to see this kind of passionate support for one’s candidate,” added Harold Ford Jr., the D.L.C. chairman and a former Tennessee congressman.

Well, O.K. But what about John Edwards? He beat Mrs. Clinton in Iowa, as one reporter pointed out, but Mr. From still doesn’t think Mr. Edwards is viable.

I’m not going to speculate where the Edwards people go because I don’t know, to be honest with you. I think Edwards has run a hard, tough campaign. It’s not a, you know, he doesn’t take the tack that necessarily I agree with. What we’ve seen so far in this campaign is optimism. …

I think what you’re saying is that this is moving into a two-person race and that people in the race have been optimistic and hopeful, and I think that bodes well for the party because in the end, as long as I’ve been in politics — and I’m a lot older than 37 — the optimism always beats pessimism.

Dan Balz of the Washington Post says that "Edwards has offended many Democrats with his candidacy". Like whom? Lawrence O'Donnell says he is a loser and maybe even both a sexist and racist because he would "deny Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton the one-on-one contest they deserve."

Now I would expect rabid dogs like the US Chamber of Commerce to come out against him -- hell, they even hate Huckabee, for God's sake -- but I would also like to know which Democrats Balz is referring to. Because if any of them have the stones to identify themselves, it should be pointed out that they aren't actually members of the Democratic Party.

They may be Democrats but they're not Democratic.

I was greatly disappointed that Iowa -- and then New Hampshire -- did not give Edwards the boost he needed. While he is now a long-shot for the nomination, I welcome his determination to stay in this race. In the wake of the Granite State's surprising result, I began to notice on the various Democratic fora I visit that many Obama supporters appeared frustrated that Edwards had not dropped out and endorsed their candidate. They believe he is splitting the anti-Hillary vote.

I think everyone should be happy that Edwards would, as he has signaled, campaign through to the convention even though the others are currently favored to win the nomination. Once Edwards does, sadly yet eventually for this blogger, withdraw -- and be that immediately after February 5, or sooner, or later -- I agree with the Obama camp that a vast majority of his support moves to the senator from Illinois and not to Mrs. Clinton. It could well be enough support for her opponent so as to deny her the nomination -- from any moment well before, to shortly after -- the roll call of the first ballot in Denver this summer.

Or to deny her the nomination entirely, of course.

Thus Clinton supporters calling for Edwards to end his campaign ought to be able to better demonstrate that Clintonian savvy for triangulation.

John Edwards, like David Van Os, is precisely the kind of Democratic politician this country needs to elect more of. Edwards -- like Van Os did in his 2006 race for Texas Attorney General -- is talking about the issues in a way that Clinton and Obama never have (and likely never will). In the debates, his campaign rallies, in his television advertisements, he calls attention to problems that the corporate media all too often filter out. His rhetoric about rescuing the middle class, and those below, ought to be terrifying to the entrenched elites in corporate America and the Democrats in the Democratic Party. John Edwards in the White House threatens business as usual, right to its foundations.

Obama and Clinton, despite all the "change" rhetoric, have not shown themselves to be committed to a progressive agenda. Clinton, in my now-updated opinion, is beatable in a general election if McCain is the nominee. And even if she wins, it will be a narrower victory than any other Democratic nominee could achieve, and probably without even a slim majority in the Senate or House or both. And we would be back to all the things that destroyed the Democratic party in the 90's: triangulation and center-right policies masquerading as liberal positions. The return of the vast right-wing conspiracy machine with a vengeance. Endless media stories about Clintonian "scandals" regardless of the merit. The snarling mug of James Carville on television every night. The DLC and its own K Street strategy, triumphant.

And obviously we will see little if any gain for progressive positions. Universal health care? Dead on arrival. She doesn't make that mistake twice. Maybe a plan that allows health insurance companies and Big Pharma to suck up even more money than they do now. Iraq? A delayed or "deferred" withdrawal, leaving thousands of American soldiers stuck in a quagmire of neoconservative and neoliberal warhawk fantasies. A continued push by AIPAC and conservative Israeli politicians to involve America in a war against Iran. The continued downgrading of environmental issues, especially lacking a response to global warming that promises any hope of real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

And to be honest, despite all the happy talk from Obama about being the candidate of hope and change, I don't know that an Obama presidency would be a whole lot different, with the possible exception of Iraq. He may secretly be a progressive wrapped in moderate/centrist/bipartisan rhetoric, but I'm not convinced that he would engage in promoting policies that would radically alter the status quo. His speeches have actually referenced Republican talking points on Social Security, for Chrissakes. He is tied to as many big money corporate interests as Clinton, and nothing I've seen from him so far in his senatorial career leads me to believe he would cross those special interests if push came to shove. I hope I would be wrong about that, but that's all it is -- hope.

Which leaves us in a place only the punditocracy could love: endless discussions of the "horse race" aspect of the campaign, with little if any substantive discussion of issues and policy differences between the candidates of either party. And the promise of a future only slightly less bleak than the Bush years.

In short, business as usual.

So that's why I still support John Edwards, and hope that he forces a brokered Democratic convention this summer.

Democrats for Romney (but only in Michigan on January 15)

HA HA HA HA HA:

In 1972, Republican voters in Michigan decided to make a little mischief, crossing over to vote in the open Democratic primary and voting for segregationist Democrat George Wallace, seriously embarrassing the state's Democrats. In fact, a third of the voters (PDF) in the Democratic primary were Republican crossover votes. In 1988, Republican voters again crossed over, helping Jesse Jackson win the Democratic primary, helping rack up big margins for Jackson in Republican precincts. (Michigan Republicans can clearly be counted on to practice the worst of racial politics.) In 1998, Republicans helped Jack Kevorkian's lawyer -- quack Geoffrey Feiger -- win his Democratic primary, thus guaranteeing their hold on the governor's mansion that year.

With a history of meddling in our primaries, why don't we try and return the favor. Next Tuesday, January 15th, Michigan will hold its primary. Michigan Democrats should vote for Mitt Romney, because if Mitt wins, Democrats win. How so?

For Michigan Democrats, the Democratic primary is meaningless since the DNC stripped the state of all its delegates (at least temporarily) for violating party rules. Hillary Clinton is alone on the ballot.

But on the GOP side, this primary will be fiercely contested. John McCain is currently enjoying the afterglow of media love since his New Hamsphire victory, while Iowa winner Mike Huckabee is poised to do well in South Carolina.

Meanwhile, poor Mitt Romney, who’s suffered back-to-back losses in the last week, desperately needs to win Michigan in order to keep his campaign afloat. Bottom line, if Romney loses Michigan, he's out. If he wins, he stays in.

And we want Romney in, because the more Republican candidates we have fighting it out, trashing each other with negative ads and spending tons of money, the better it is for us. We want Mitt to stay in the race, and to do that, we need him to win in Michigan.

And more here.

Join the Facebook group also.

The next Harris County DA's most important job qualification?

To be able to locate the facilities:

Kelly Siegler said she is being blamed unfairly for the video and e-mails on Rosenthal's work computer, and that in fact she suggested several months ago that technicians on Rosenthal's staff randomly check computers for such abuses by any employee.

A day after saying her husband's e-mail activity at work was solely his personal business, Siegler said the e-mail was offensive and hurtful to many people. "If he's stupid enough to waste his time to send out offensive e-mails, I don't agree with it," she said.

Regardless, Siegler said, she is the best candidate to restore faith in the district attorney's office because she has worked there for 21 years, learning its operations inside and out.

"To put it bluntly, Judge Lykos, Mr. Leitner and Clarence Bradford don't know where the restrooms are in the office," she said.

Ms. Seigler's resume' is presumably filled with more job-specific qualifications than this.

Considering that the Harris County Republicans are now voicing concern over how this might effect their electoral chances in November, I'll point out to Siegler that maybe what the voters of both political parties are actually looking for in the next district attorney is less scatology. And maybe a little bit less bluntness as well.

Muse has more fun with it. There is not going to be enough popcorn in all of Harris County for this much hilarity in the months to come.

Update: More Siegler stupidity ...

Republican district attorney candidate Kelly Siegler told a judge last year that members of Houston's Lakewood Church are "screwballs and nuts" and that she works to keep them off of juries.

And the Attorney General of Texas, Greg Abbott, has finally decided to look into the "official misconduct" of Chuck Rosenthal. Don't expect much to come out of a Republican investigating a Republican in an election year.

So is it sexist when MoDo says it?

Or is she just being a humongous asshole as usual? (I think I have answered my own question...)

At the Portsmouth cafe on Monday, talking to a group of mostly women, she blinked back her misty dread of where Obama’s “false hopes” will lead us — “I just don’t want to see us fall backwards,” she said tremulously — in time to smack her rival: “But some of us are right and some of us are wrong. Some of us are ready and some of us are not.”

There was a poignancy about the moment, seeing Hillary crack with exhaustion from decades of yearning to be the principal rather than the plus-one. But there was a whiff of Nixonian self-pity about her choking up. What was moving her so deeply was her recognition that the country was failing to grasp how much it needs her. In a weirdly narcissistic way, she was crying for us. But it was grimly typical of her that what finally made her break down was the prospect of losing.

As Spencer Tracy said to Katharine Hepburn in “Adam’s Rib,” “Here we go again, the old juice. Guaranteed heart melter. A few female tears, stronger than any acid.”

Is it sexist only if a man says something like this? Is this sorta similar to when black people call each other the n-word?

I just want to clearly understand the distinctions. Where the line is, so I won't step on it again.

Or is it sexist not to call Hillary out for a little whining because she was asked "how do you go on" (on the premise that treating men and women differently in similar circumstances is the very definition of sexism)? The incident would not have gone unremarked upon had it been any of the men on either side of the aisle. And it is ridiculous to suggest so.

Or ... was New Hampshire a little payback for all the times women have been put down, pushed down, passed over, held back, paid less, called "little lady", patted on the ass, whistled at, groped, etc.

See, I heard the tremolo (see tremulous for the best definition here) in her voice as well, and described it as "whimpering". But -- I have been appropriately chastened -- that's considered a sexist remark coming from a man. For the record I would call it 'whimpering' had Edwards done it.

The Clintons once more wriggled out of a tight spot at the last minute. Bill churlishly dismissed the Obama phenom as “the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen,” but for the last few days, it was Hillary who seemed in danger of being Cinderella. She became emotional because she feared that she had reached her political midnight, when she would suddenly revert to the school girl with geeky glasses and frizzy hair, smart but not the favorite. All those years in the shadow of one Natural, only to face the prospect of being eclipsed by another Natural?

How humiliating to have a moderator of the New Hampshire debate ask her to explain why she was not as popular as the handsome young prince from Chicago. How demeaning to have Obama rather ungraciously chime in: “You’re likable enough.” And how exasperating to be pushed into an angry rebuttal when John Edwards played wingman, attacking her on Obama’s behalf.

More of this:

Gloria Steinem wrote in The Times yesterday that one of the reasons she is supporting Hillary is that she had “no masculinity to prove.” But Hillary did feel she needed to prove her masculinity. That was why she voted to enable W. to invade Iraq without even reading the National Intelligence Estimate and backed the White House’s bellicosity on Iran.

Yet, in the end, she had to fend off calamity by playing the female victim, both of Obama and of the press. Hillary has barely talked to the press throughout her race even though the Clintons this week whined mightily that the press prefers Obama.

So Dowd contradicts Steinem regarding Hillary's testosterone level. Hm.

To play level on this field, I also dismiss a rather incessant carp on the part of my camp about Edwards being ignored in the media; "this is now a two-horse race", etc. (By the way, is it sexist or racist or something else-ist to refer to Clinton and Obama as thoroughbreds? Just checking. My sensitivity meter may be giving me false readings.)

Bill Clinton, campaigning in Henniker on Monday, also played the poor-little-woman card in a less-than-flattering way. “I can’t make her younger, taller or change her gender,” he said.

I think the Big Dog forgot to say "black".

And I don't think I like the turn this campaign has taken. Is it too late to turn around?

Oh wait, here's Andy Borowitz. He'll lighten things up for me:

Hillary Schedules Official Crying Jag for South Carolina

Launches ‘Sniffling Tour’ Before SuperDuper Tuesday

Saying that she has learned valuable lessons from her victory in the New Hampshire primary, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) today announced that she was scheduling an official crying jag for the eve of the South Carolina primary on January 26.

Speaking to reporters in Las Vegas this morning, her eyes noticeably watery, Mrs. Clinton said that her election eve crying jag would be scheduled for 4 PM EST on January 25.

But the newly lachrymose junior senator from New York indicated that her South Carolinian waterworks would only be one stop on an ambitious tear-drenched campaign schedule leading up to SuperDuper Tuesday on February 5, an itinerary which she and her aides are calling her “Sniffling Tour.”

“I’m going to be crying so much you’re going to think I’m Anderson Cooper,” she wept.

But even as Mrs. Clinton said that “this election is a crying game, and I’m in it to win it,” some political observers wondered if the New York senator would be able to cry at will as often as her punishing schedule demands.

According to strategist Mark Penn, a trusted group of campaign aides would have the job of inducing tears from Mrs. Clinton by “saying mean things to her” before every appearance.

Additionally, Mr. Penn says, Mrs. Clinton has a secret weapon in her latest endeavor, former president Bill Clinton: “No one can make Hillary cry like Bill can.”

More Rosenthal scandal, anyone? No thank you, I'm full.

Let's just go to the story:

New e-mails released Tuesday show District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal sent and received racist jokes and strategized with political consultants and colleagues about his re-election campaign on his county e-mail account.

Also within the correspondence obtained Tuesday by the Houston Chronicle were numerous sexually explicit images. It was unclear, however, if Rosenthal ever forwarded those files.

The latest batch of 730 e-mails was met with concern by Harris County GOP leaders, who had already successfully pressured him to abandon his re-election bid.

"It's time for Chuck Rosenthal to pack his bags and leave," said county GOP Chairman Jared Woodfill.

Rosenthal declined to comment late Tuesday.

Rosenthal has hit Bush's trifecta. The only way anyone will ever be able to feel sorry for him now is if he shoots himself.

The scandal is blowing back to assistant DA -- (and filed candidate for Chuck's job) Kelly Siegler, whose husband sent much of the naughty e-mail in question:

Also included within the e-mails is heavy traffic between Rosenthal and Sam Siegler, Rosenthal's physician and the husband of Kelly Siegler, who is running for district attorney.

In one e-mail from Sam Siegler to Rosenthal, an attached video shows women having their breasts exposed after men forcibly pulled down their blouses in public. The video called the act "sharking."

And the story goes on. And on.

Now let's be clear: we've all gotten nasty crap like this in our inboxes. Some of us have even forwarded -- and originated -- some of it. I just got this howler (VNSFW) over the holidays, to use myself as an example. But I'm not the Harris County district attorney, either. In fact I won't ever be able to be a candidate for public office, having blogged many of my coarser opinions under my birth name.

No great loss to public service, you're thinking. And hey, you're right.

Of course this isn't about me. This is about elected officials who use their taxpayer-funded time and computers in the most unprofessional of circumstances, to say nothing of the hypocrisy demonstrated in the self-righteousness they proclaim publicly by wearing WWJD bracelets and standing up in Second Baptist Church to declare their close relationship with the Almighty.

And it's also now about candidates for the same public office who haughtily dismiss the hijinks:

"He cusses like a sailor and his sense of humor is crude, to put it mildly," (Siegler) said. "It's his computer and what he does at work is his business. He's the boss."

She declined to comment on whether Rosenthal should resign but said the revelations wouldn't affect her campaign.

"I would hope the voters are more concerned about qualifications of their DA than some inappropriate e-mails."

Oh trust me, Kelly; we are.

Rhymes with Right calls for Rosenthal's immediate departure and not because of nasty e-mail but because the DA was also using his work computer for campaign-related activities, which of course is a violation of election law.

Whatever. It's long past time for Rosenthal to move out -- of his office, of the newspaper headlines, and probably out of town.

The FairTax and other right-wing populist scams

I came home late last night to the New Hampshire returns because I was on the program (along with David Mincberg, Michael Skelly, and Steven Kirkland) at the meeting of Galleria Democrats to debate the Fair Tax.

Well, 'debate' isn't the right word. It was more like a beatdown of the poor guy advocating in its favor.

Anyway, on the news that Kuffner posts regarding the alliance of former Houston mayor Bob Lanier and FairTax founder Leo Linbeck Jr. and others to camouflage their latest elitist-welfare scheme as grassroots populism, it's worth pausing to note the various "citizen activist" efforts Linbeck is involved in, such as Texans for Lawsuit Reform.

(Recall that one of Karl Rove and Grover Norquist's fundamental strategies for starving the Democratic Party has been to starve plaintiff's attorneys by reforming tort laws; in Texas, with Republicans controlling every statewide office including all nine seats on the Texas Supreme Court as well as most of the Texas Legislature, they managed to push through damages caps on lawsuits like medical malpractice, for example. This article details the effects of that on the local legal community -- and the injured patients wounded a second time by tort reform.)

Linbeck is simply another stinking-rich conservative Republican who doesn't have enough yachts to water-ski behind. His activism consists of his actively looking for ways to hoodwink uninformed suburbanites who have mindlessly cast their straight GOP tickets for self-devastating causes like these before. And he's almost as successful at that as he is at making millions in his core businesses.

FairTax, Texans for Lawsuit Reform, and now Houstonians for Responsible Growth. Orwellian truthspeak in name, nefarious welfare-for-the-wealthy in intent.

Let's not get fooled again, shall we?