The Weekly Wrangle

Once again the TPA's finest postings from the past seven days are collected (thanks to Vince at Capitol Annex).

Muse found the potties at the Harris County D.A.’s office -- thereby making her qualified to be District Attorney (according to Kelly Siegler). "Muse 2012: Qualified and Potty Location Trained."

Hide the silver! Off the Kuff says Tom DeLay is back in town.

CouldBeTrue at South Texas Chisme notes that Kay 'Bye Bye' Bailey Hutchison is getting grief from the knuckle-draggers in her own party for the recently passed border fence amendment. Apparently even a little bit of sanity must be stamped out by the Republican base.

Early voting, Hal at Half Empty says, may just be something ALL Democrats need to consider in order to avoid confusion at the polls when locations at schools are moved (due to TAKS schedules) this coming March.

The FairTax (Mike Huckabee's 30% national sales tax scheme), Texans for (Tort) Reform, and Houstonians for (Ir)Responsible Growth all have one billionaire in common: Leo Linbeck Jr. PDiddie at Brains and Eggs provides the 411 on Linbeck's various conservative-populist-activist shell companies.

WCNews at Eye On Williamson points to an inane AAS editorial on the AG's health care gambit.

Harry Balczak at McBlogger found an interesting take on the candidates in the presidential election.

Jaye at Winding Road notes that these are the times that try Democratic souls.

Gary at Easter Lemming Liberal News wants Obama or Clinton to pay the $2,000 and establish a precedent of auditing and hand-counting electronic ballots. The complete series of the New Hampshire results and the reasons why it may be a good idea to audit is here.

Vince at Capitol Annex notes that Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott is testing the waters for his 2010 run for lieutenant governor with his asinine child insurance program.

BossKitty at BlueBloggin reviews the history Of US-backed dictators - redux.

Stace at DosCentavos bids a fond farewell to the history-making candidacy of Bill Richardson and shares his thoughts and feelings on supporting the first Latino presidential candidate.

John Coby at Bay Area Houston wonders why state representative John Davis was a no-show in the local paper's write-up concerning the race for HD-129.

More Sunday Funnies (non-primary edition)

Sunday Funnies (primary edition)

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.