Yes it's funny

Obama still should be planning a visit to South Texas.  Soon.

Update: The Field Negro, and his commenters, weigh in.

Border crisis spawns excessive stupidity, hatred

-- "Obama heads to Texas with no plans to visit border".  A mistake.  Potentially a grave one politically, no matter that those compassionate conservatives at Fox News are furiously using that fact as yet another opportunity to brand Obama as... what exactly?  As cruel and heartless as the city council members of League City and the commissioners of Galveston County?

Yes, Henry Cuellar is all but a Republican himself, but he's also correct.  Obama is letting them tar him with this.  He could put a stop to it by simply going to South Texas.  Yes, he would have to endure being with Rick Perry for several hours, probably the worst punishment imaginable, but to just keep to his fundraising schedule is simply awful.  Not as awful as detaining children in crowded conditions with the threat of deportation... but everybody has to suffer a little now.

Update: When John Cornyn can be the blind hog finding an acorn, then you have to know it's bad.

Update II: The DMN files a report on this afternoon's meeting.  And the photo -- Juanita Jean has it posted -- is indeed priceless.

-- Then there's Louie.

“If he wanted to, he could do what Woodrow Wilson did — and he’s certainly not one of my favorite presidents,” Gohmert said on Tuesday. “But after Pancho Villa’s gangs came across, I believe in Arizona, and killed some American families, he said, ‘That’s it.’ He sent John Pershing with troops into Mexico. And you can read some different versions. Tens of thousands of National Guard were put on the border. And Dan, nobody came in that we didn’t want to come in.”

Gohmert was likely referring to a March 1916 attack by Villa and his supporters against a detachment of the Army’s 13th Cavalry Regiment in Columbus, New Mexico. The Mexican revolutionary leader carried out the attack in order to gain supplies for his military campaign against the country’s U.S.-backed president, Venustiano Carranza.

Eighteen U.S. residents were killed in the attack. In response, Pershing and 5,000 Army troops pursued Villa’s forces in Mexico for nearly a year, to no avail.

Need not be said: Louie Gohmert is no "Black Jack" Pershing.  On the other hand, maybe we could send him into Mexico on horseback for a year; just no guns, ammo, or other 'soldiers'.

One drone, Louie.  One unarmed drone flying over your head about twenty feet off the ground with a camera on you.  No missiles, not even a BB gun.  And a canteen of cold water.  That's all you get.

-- It's also a little disappointing that Wendy Davis and Greg Abbott are skirmishing about something else at this moment.  A very important something else, but not worth a bus tour across the state right now.  Thank goodness (I suppose) that Abbott keeps responding inappropriately to the mess of his own making.

The "driving around" comment made a train wreck out of two-car pileup.  Just ridiculous.  What's to stop the terrorists from driving around and asking which of Abbott's cronies are storing explosive chemicals in wooden containers?  Or does he know that we will all just be lied to about it?

Still, both Davis and Abbott might ought to have been invited to that meeting Obama and Perry and "evangelical leaders" (sic) are holding in Dallas today.  Or maybe they should be down at the border themselves.  That is if anyone was interested in seeing the scope of the challenge, let alone be motivated to actually do something about it.  Was it just a few weeks ago that Davis -- and a bunch of Republicans -- called for a special session on the humanitarian crisis?  That really picked up a head of steam.

This moral dilemma on the Texas-Mexico border just doesn't appear to be a problem any of our elected leaders can seem to solve.  Speaking as an atheist, I thought the Bible was clear on how to respond to thousands of hungry, displaced children.  Why, the words of the Son of God even appear in red print in my New Testament, presumably so that they can be easy to read.

Is it a comprehension problem, or 21st-century revisionism as Matt Bors pans above, or something else that makes conservative Christians fail their faith in this regard?

Obama drags sack through Texas but won't go near the border

I can begin to see Wendy Davis' point in avoiding DC Democrats when they display the political tin ear that the president is also showing off this week.

The White House on Monday insisted most of the thousands of unaccompanied minors flooding across the border will be deported.

The firm position came as President Obama was set to travel to Texas, the center of a growing firestorm over the nation’s inability to prevent illegal immigrants from entering the country.

Obama is set to hold fundraisers in Dallas and Austin during the two-day trip, but he has no plans to visit the border, where officials have struggled for months to contain a wave of minors seeking refuge in the United States.

The president has come under criticism from members of both parties over the wave of immigrants, who have filled detention centers and overwhelmed a court system ill-prepared to handle the surge.

Yes he has, and that hasn't influenced him in the slightest apparent way.

Now before you think that I have decided to join Y'all Qaeda and make a run for the border... stop.  Those packs of crackers -- JMHO now -- need to be shot on sight themselves.  I mean to say hunted down and rounded up and beaten with hoses and fists by LEO and accidentally wind up dead, a few of them.  How else are we supposed to treat seditionists in America?  Shouldn't Joe Campos Torres get some payback after all these years?

All righty then, that's incited enough aneurysms in conservative brains (sic) for one morning.  But my work is not yet done here.

Obama's two fundraising stops in Dallas and Austin are to raise money for the DCCC (Congressional Democrats) and the DSCC (Senate Democrats) for the 2014 elections.

Officials from the Democratic National Committee say that the president will attend fundraising events on July 9 and 10 in Austin. As first reported by The Hollywood Reporter, Texas filmmaker Robert Rodriguez will host the first event on July 9 at his Austin home.

[...]

Tickets for the Rodriguez-hosted fundraiser range from $5,000 to $32,400. Jessica Alba, Demi Lovato, Rosario Dawson and Danny Trejo are slated to make appearances at the event, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

The president will stay overnight in Austin and appear at a July 10 fundraiser and roundtable discussion hosted by Aimee Boone Cunningham at her home. Cunningham serves as the assistant secretary of the Center for Reproductive Rights. Tickets for this event are $32,400.

And all of that money will be spent to help elect Democrats in places other than Texas.  Oh, perhaps Pete Gallego might get a few bones thrown his way, since he's in a tough race.  But that's it.

What might be even worse than the fact that Texas keeps getting milked like a rented goat is that there are wealthy Lone Star Democrats  who are willing to write five-figure checks to the DNC, but suddenly develop alligator arms when statewides like Davis -- and Van de Putte and Mike Collier and Sam Houston and on down the line -- could use just a little bit of that help.

Let that sink in for a moment: millionaire Democrats in Texas writing five-figure checks to DC Democrats don't think that Texas Democrats are worth writing a check to.  It's more important that a Democrat get elected to Congress in Ohio or Maryland or California than it is for a Texas Democrat to get elected to anything.

Folks, that's what's wrong with Texas, the Democratic Party, and our campaign finance system in this country as the three dysfunctions can be most perfectly photographed together.

Forget the fact that Latinos understand that Wendy Davis feels the same way as Obama AND Rick Perry, for that matter -- "send 'em back".  Overlook that she has already exhibited electoral weakness in south Texas in her primary even as Greg Abbott practiced early outreach to them.

But hey, this is supposed to be a rant on the president.

As Obama’s trip approached, the White House insisted Monday it was “not worried” about the optics of the president raising cash with Texan donors without going to see the developing crisis firsthand, even as Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) pressured Obama to go to the border.

“The president is very aware of the situation that exists on the southwest border,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Monday.

Obama has the difficult task of arguing that he does not “have to be there in order to see the problem and deal with it effectively,” said Southern Methodist University political scientist Cal Jillson.

“They have to work the optics as best they can because going to the border with Gov. Perry would provide him an opportunity to grandstand, which he would almost certainly do,” Jillson said.

What?!  Governor Conspiracy Theory would demagogue for the cameras in front of several thousand hungry brown children?!  Say it ain't so.

So yeah, it's a no-win situation for everybody involved.  Except for a few Democratic candidates running for office somewhere besides Texas.

Update: The Dallas Morning Views is kinder and gentler and still says the same as me.

The Weekly Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance has been driving around asking about incendiary chemicals as it brings you this week's roundup.

Off the Kuff reports on the petitions turned in by opponents of the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance to require a repeal referendum on the ballot in November, and the determination of the ordinance's backers to defend it against such efforts.

Libby Shaw at Texas Kaos is sick and disgusted to report another chemical explosion like that in West, TX last year is a strong possibility. Why? Because Greg Abbott has a Koch problem: why Texas residents are essentially powerless.

WCNews at Eye on Williamson shows that Greg Abbott's chemical problems makes clear that the GOP in Texas is Corporate-Owned.

While PDiddie at Brains and Eggs finds a great deal to be enthusiastic about in recent developments for the Blue team's chances in November, it's not all peaches and cream for Texas Democrats.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme knows Greg Abbott loves profits for his cronies over worker safety and Blake Farenthold loves cronies so much he's eased up a teensy bit on the usual republican Hispanic bashing. It's oligarchy first for the GOP.

The Supreme Court ruling giving Hobby Lobby the right to deny contraception health services was a surprise to many Americans. But given how ecstatic Greg Abbott was about the decision, Texas Leftist is left to wonder just what surprises he'd have if elected governor. Would Abbott try to ban birth control in Texas??

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

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

No Border Wall and Que Fregados have heartbreaking reports from the scene in South Texas, where thousands of children escaping violence in their Central America homelands are streaming across the Rio Grande.

CultureMap Houston reports on the Concert Against Hate, bringing eight Houston theater companies together to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act.

jobsanger also wondered why Wendy Davis chose to run away from national Democrats at the state convention, while Socratic Gadfly mused as to whether jealousy was involved.

Fascist Dyke Motors has chapter one of the Totally True Tales of Dana.

Paul Kennedy and many other defense attorneys in Harris County protested the actions of a criminal court judge that was "encouraging" defendants to do their business before him without being represented by a lawyer.

Texas Election Law Blog analyzes True The Vote's ability to intervene in the Thad Cochran/Chris McDaniel election dispute.

Texas Clean Air Matters celebrates the recent SCOTUS ruling that confirmed the EPA's authority to address climate pollution, while State Impact Texas says that if it seems hazy in Central Texas lately, don't worry.  It's just Saharan dust in the wind.

Greg Wythe shows us what signing in on Election Day may look like in the near future.

SciGuy reassures us that we are not likely to be eaten by a shark.

The Bloggess researched fireworks options so you didn't have to.

And finally, Lowering the Bar isn't a Texas blog, but as a legal humor blog targeting Greg Abbott for his pathetic performance in the redistricting legal fee dispute with Wendy Davis, they're welcome to be in this week's review.

Sunday Funnies

Celebrating independence through anarchy

In this instance, defined as deviations from duopoly orthodoxy.

-- Howard Zinn, from 2006:

On this July 4, we would do well to renounce nationalism and all its symbols: its flags, its pledges of allegiance, its anthems, its insistence in song that God must single out America to be blessed.

Is not nationalism -- that devotion to a flag, an anthem, a boundary so fierce it engenders mass murder -- one of the great evils of our time, along with racism, along with religious hatred?

These ways of thinking -- cultivated, nurtured, indoctrinated from childhood on -- have been useful to those in power, and deadly for those out of power.

National spirit can be benign in a country that is small and lacking both in military power and a hunger for expansion (Switzerland, Norway, Costa Rica and many more). But in a nation like ours -- huge, possessing thousands of weapons of mass destruction -- what might have been harmless pride becomes an arrogant nationalism dangerous to others and to ourselves.

Our citizenry has been brought up to see our nation as different from others, an exception in the world, uniquely moral, expanding into other lands in order to bring civilization, liberty, democracy.

That self-deception started early.

It gets a little more intense from there, especially if you're a flag-waving, Fox-watching American exceptionalist.

-- "At some point, progressives need to break up with the Democratic Party", by the vaunted cartoonist I post here frequently, Ted Rall.  It's the yin to my yang of being as blue as I can be in midterm election years.

This one is going to sting, Democrats. Mostly because it describes Texas Democrats to T.

At a certain point, if you have any relationship with dignity, you're supposed to get sick of being used and abused. Speaking of which: liberal Democrats.

Democratic politicians act like right-wingers. Liberals vote for them anyway.

The Democratic Party espouses right-wing policies. Self-described progressives give them cash.

Comedian Bill Maher gave them a million cash dollars -- yet Democrats don't agree with him on anything. Why? Because he hates Republicans even more.

Why didn't Maher save his money? Or better yet, fund a group or a writer or an artist who promotes ideas he actually agrees with? Because he, like tens of millions of other liberals, are stuck in the two-party trap.

The relationship between liberals and Democrats is dysfunctional and enabling, abused pathetics sucking up to cruel abusers. Progressives like Maher are like a kid with two rotten parents. The dad drinks and hits him; the mom drinks less and hits him less. The best call is to run away from home -- instead, most children in that situation will draw closer to their mothers.

Voting-age progressives, on the other hand, are adults. When will they kick the Democratic Party to the curb, as Ricki Lake used to say?

Probably not in time for 2016. But they ought to.

You read what I wrote about Texas Democrats, specifically Wendy Davis, passing on having Hillary Clinton speak at their state convention a week ago?  And what a boost it could have been for the party's overall fortunes?  I say that as someone who does not care for Mrs. Clinton, will not be voting for her in the primary two years from now, and will not be voting for her in the general election in 2016.

But the reality is that I -- and everyone like me -- stand as much chance of keeping her from reaching the White House as the entirety of the Republican Party of the United States of America.  So there's that.

-- Finally and more gently than the previous two, from Ballot Access News, all those e-mails that you haven't been reading from Lawrence Lessig lately are summed up here.

Professor Lawrence Lessig is actively working to create a SuperPAC that would spend its money to help congressional candidates who will work to pass a public funding bill in 2015. The SuperPac has been soliciting pledges. The pledges will not be payable unless the effort reaches a goal of $5,000,000 in pledges by the end of July 4, Hawaii time. As of 1:30 p.m. Hawaii time, $4,778,325 has been pledged. *Update: they reached their $5M goal.

If the SuperPac, called MayDay, reaches its goal, the funds will be more than matched by various wealthy individuals, and the PAC will have $12,000,000, or close to it. That money could then be used for independent expenditures in favor of congressional candidates who will work for public funding. The plan is to spend the money in 5 U.S. House districts, and those districts will be chosen and announced by July 15.

See mayday.us for more information. One possible disincentive for some potential donors is that the donation part of the web page asks donors if they wish the money spent on Democratic candidates, or Republican candidates. There is no option for the donor to ask that the money be spent on a candidate not nominated by either major party.

Meanwhile, the bill in the U.S. House for public funding, H.R. 20, now has 156 co-sponsors. It gained six co-sponsors in May, but only two in June.

Yeahno.  Not quite the degree of transformation of the political system I'm looking for.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to grill some chicken.

It's not all peaches and cream for Texas Dems

I'm encouraged -- even enthusiastic -- about the past couple of weeks' worth of news, but there remain a few dark clouds on the horizon... most of them hovering over Wendy Davis.  In their latest TribTalk, pollmeisters Jim Henson and Joshua Blank -- unlike their previous attempt at post-polling analysis -- get it dead solid perfect this time.

When it comes to abortion, Texans are pro-access with a very limited acceptance of choice for women as most people understand it, according to University of Texas/Texas Tribune polling data.

This landscape forms the terrain on which the gubernatorial campaigns of Democrat Wendy Davis and Republican Greg Abbott are unfolding. While common sense says Democrats don’t want to run a campaign in Texas on the issue of abortion, Abbott's vagueness on just how restrictive his positions are — particularly on exceptions for rape, incest and threats to a woman’s health — likely benefits him much more than Davis’ silence on the matter benefits her.

That's about as strongly correct as anything I have read about the race for governor on this topic.

We wrote at the time of Davis’ 2013 filibuster that the policy that had garnered much of the media coverage up until that point, the 20-week ban, was not the likely cause of the long-unseen Democratic mobilization, because majorities of Texans expressed support for that provision. (Davis herself has subsequently suggested that she would have voted for it in isolation.) Her supporters were mobilized in opposition to other parts of the bill that promised to restrict abortion access (and have done so). In the same June 2013 survey showing that majorities supported the 20-week ban, 79 percent of respondents indicated that abortion should be allowed under varying circumstances (only 16 percent of respondents in Texas, as elsewhere, support an overall prohibition on the procedure). Thus, Davis’ reluctance to utter the A-word is not likely about her fear of a majority who abhors all access to abortion but rather a reluctance to provide further fodder for opponents who would attack her for her opposition to a bill that included a 20-week ban.

It’s little surprise that the most intense pressure on Davis is coming from those who wish her campaign ill. Republican partisans have worked overtime to reassociate Davis with opposition to the 20-week ban in an effort to define her not just as a liberal — a label that Republicans have tarred Democrats with for more than a generation — but also as an extremist on abortion.

Yes, the "Abortion Barbie" smear has been effective for the bottom-of-the-barrel conservatives in defining Davis.  So far.  But Abbott has a thin tightrope to walk on the issue himself (that's not insensitive to a man in a wheelchair, is it?).

We found broad support — greater than 70 percent — for access to abortion when a woman’s life may be in danger or when the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest. While majorities of Republicans also support these exceptions, about 20 percent of Republicans regularly tell us that they oppose abortion under any circumstance. So any clarification by Abbott could potentially create a division within his base and provide ammunition for a future primary challenger — the prototype of whom is very much in the making. At the same time, any clarification that brings Abbott closer to Patrick’s position distances him further from the general electorate and gives Davis what she so sorely needs: a reason for some Republicans to vote for her.

Greg Abbott is dying to come out of the closet as an abortion absolutist, but he can't afford to do so until after he is elected.  Which is why those of us who support a woman's right to choose -- no matter the degree of that choice, no matter the party affiliation -- cannot afford to see him get elected.

But Abbott’s difficulties make for only the narrowest of political openings for Davis. Broad support for these abortion exceptions in tragic circumstances does not a pro-choice electorate make, certainly not in a literal sense of the word “choice.” In fact, under all of the circumstances in which a woman’s ability to exercise autonomous choice about a pregnancy was put to the test (for example, an unmarried woman who didn’t want to marry the man), Texans were much less supportive of abortion access.

These results highlight the difficulties that the abortion issue poses for Davis. While a clear rhetorical path that focuses on access to abortion when absolutely necessary exists and, in many respects, makes sense, to walk that tightrope would require a wholesale reconstruction of the politics that have defined the abortion debate for the last 30 years. But in the unreconstructed present, should Davis bring abortion back to the forefront, Abbott would no doubt reinforce support among his base — which is still large enough in Texas to win an election outright in the near term — by painting Davis as an old-school, pro-choice liberal.

The Dems' two-decades-long losing streak allows the Republicks to cater to the extremists in the Tea Party, more so than in any other state. Until they lose something, they won't moderate.  They don't have to.  More to the point, Abbott dodging the media's efforts to pin him down on exactly how much abortion he opposes makes more sense in this regard.  Henson and Blank saved the best for last.

Davis’ silence is nothing if not understandable — but also symptomatic of the campaign’s lack of options as it looks for ways to shake up the fundamentals of a race in which Republicans have so many advantages. But, in fact, it’s Abbott’s silence that offers the bigger advantage by allowing him to benefit from a status quo that has led Republicans to win every statewide office for the last 16 years — and enabled them to enact policies that reflect the preferences of their most activist voters. 

As long as Greg Abbott keeps shooting himself in the foot (if you're paralyzed, does that hurt?) over things like chemical explosives concealment, continuously filing lawsuits against Obama and losing, flying around on corporate jets belonging to some of the worst conservatives in the world -- Wendy Davis can keep the pressure on him, dictating and defining the terms of engagement.  Mostly away from the subject of women's reproductive freedoms.

Update: More on this from Ted at jobsanger.

She miscalculated, however, in passing on an opportunity to boost her candidacy and the party's standing by asking Hillary Clinton (or Joe Biden, or even Kirsten Gillibrand) not to be the keynote speaker at last week's Democratic state convention.  Chris Hooks at the Texas Observer noticed what I wanted to post about a week or two ahead of the convention, and dug a little deeper into the why.

The Texas Republican convention last month featured a number of GOPers from across the country, including Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, and Sen. Deb Fischer of Nebraska. They came to network, build ties with the state party, and raise money, and their presence helped give the convention a greater profile in national media. The slate of speakers at the Texas Democrats’ convention this past weekend in Dallas, by comparison, was devoid of such national figures.

It didn’t have to be that way, though. Democrats involved with planning the convention told the Observer that Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand were in talks to speak at the gathering. Each had seemed to signal a willingness to speak—with Gillibrand even offering to help with the cost of attending the convention. But Wendy Davis’ representatives nixed the plan, fearing the national pols would be a liability for her.

The Davis campaign wanted its candidate to be the primary focus of the convention and worried that the presence of national Democrats would distract from the Fort Worth state senator’s keynote. And according to Democrats with knowledge of the debate over the speaker lineup, the campaign feared connecting Davis’ name to national Democrats who may be unpopular in Texas. Davis has suffered from quite a bit of that kind of coverage.

Frankly, this lack of confidence is a manifestation of the tired, scared, defeatist Texas Democratic Party as demonstrated so many times over the past twenty years that I'm sick and tired of writing about it.

What would the participation of Clinton, Biden or Gillibrand have meant for the convention? According to Democrats who thought the decision to exclude national figures was a mistake, there would have almost certainly been more media attention. There simply wasn’t much to write about in Dallas, and coverage, even among Texas outlets, reflected that. And there would likely have been better attendance at the convention—Clinton, Biden and Gillibrand are generally quite popular among the progressive crowd of delegates that attended the event. “Ready for Hillary” stickers adorned many delegates. Gillibrand is an icon for progressive women thanks in part to her doomed push for military sexual assault legislation.

Clinton’s attendance, especially, would have drawn the convention into the national spotlight. Major national publications have reporters dedicated solely to chronicling Clinton’s activities. In the past, Clinton’s camp has made noises about contesting Texas in the course of the 2016 presidential race; if she spoke at the convention, that would likely have featured heavily in coverage and been a boost for a party in need of some encouraging headlines. Some closer to the party said they would have loved to see that boost—and the slate of statewide candidates that the Democrats are backing, many of whom suffer from low name recognition and limited fundraising ability, could have benefited from it, sources said.

The "Ready for Hillary" booth was the busiest, consistently, that I saw in the convention hall, which everyone had to walk through on their way to their seats in the main assembly.   There has indeed been lots of whining about the lack of corporate media coverage of last weekend's convention, and Peggy Fikac and Mike Ward nailed a few of the cowards among the Dems in the week before.

Jack Freeman is a yellow-dog Democrat who has voted for his party's candidates for longer than he can remember. But he hopes his party's Washington stars will stay away until after the November general election, especially from the state convention that start(ed last) Friday in Dallas.

"Please, Mr. Obama, stay home," said Freeman, an Austin retiree, echoing the sentiments of other rank-and-file Democrats. "They're not liked down here, and we've got good candidates here in Texas who can win, as long as they stay on Texas issues and not get caught up in the mess in Washington."

Battered-person syndrome on full display.   Back to Hooks in the TO.

The decision to exclude national speakers at the convention is fascinating for a couple of reasons. For one, it highlights a split in thinking between groups backing Wendy Davis—her campaign team and Battleground Texas—and the state party, which is providing the primary backing for most of Davis’ ticketmates, including Leticia Van de Putte. The two groups are bringing markedly different approaches to the general election. While those different strategies may complement each other in some areas, they clash in others. At the convention negotiations, Davis’ team won.

A spokesman with the Davis campaign declined to comment, but an official with knowledge of the convention planning told the Observer that “there was an effort to make sure Texas was the focus of the convention.”

Davis is running a pricey, high-stakes campaign that’s banking heavily on its ability to win over moderates and independents—the kind of voters that helped her retain a center-right Texas Senate district in Fort Worth. Some of her pronouncements in the past—flirting with open carry laws, embracing some abortion restrictions, and talking tough on the border crisis—make sense if seen through that prism. And it also makes sense that she would shy away from affiliation with national Democrats, who may not be popular with the moderates she hopes to win over.

Other candidates on the Democratic slate are being backed more heavily by the state party. They, particularly Van de Putte, have a very different strategy in mind. With a fraction of the resources Davis has, Van de Putte’s team will rely more heavily on turning out the base while taking advantage of as much free media and attention as she can. And she’ll hope that her opponent, Dan Patrick, alienates moderate voters on his own.

Unfortunately I got the mild impression first-hand that Wendy is nervous about being overshadowed even by Leti, who generates her own high-wattage star power.

To illustrate that, I saw Davis speak twice the weekend before the convention, at two polar opposite events; one in Sugar Land named the Breakfast of Champions at the swanky Sweetwater Country Club raising funds for the Fort Bend Democratic Party, and then again at lunchtime in Houston, over barbecue plates at the CWA hall for the Legendary Ladies of Labor rally.  Two completely different audiences, and she gave different stump speeches at each.  The first one praised the diversity of Fort Bend County (the most so in the United States), its current purplish hue placing it right on the cusp of turning blue, and the occasion of the civil rights struggles of the era fifty years ago.  Her second speech was more boilerplate, acknowledging the power of the labor movement for Democrats and the associated call to arms for their support and organizational ability to help her.

In both venues she arrived in the room with an entourage of just one, former TDP hand Hector Nieto, who almost never looked up from his phone, thumbing furiously and constantly.  But Davis entered to a reaction as I have seen only rock stars generate.  Everyone in the room in both places -- perhaps 300 well-dressed people at the country club, and twice that many in jeans and T-shirts at the union hall --- murmur, rise to their feet, click away with their phones and cameras and begin applauding, and then cheering. The speaker at the dais in both places was drowned out by the interruption, which grew into an eruption.

Suffice it to say that neither Bill White nor Chris Bell, both Houston favorite sons who ran for governor in the last two off-presidential cycles, ever elicited anything close to that kind of response in my experience.

She spoke with conviction in both morning and afternoon appearances, clearly and forcefully... but not what I would consider passionately, and I was told by other Dems who have heard her speak many more times than me that she has improved on the stump.  I'll take that at face value.  In Dallas, I retired early before Davis' convention speech, which Hooks described as 'adequate'.  Van de Putte, by contrast, had the best speech of all by a long measure.  It included this pretty hilarious intro video.



Hooks with the last graf in his piece.

As such, Van de Putte, and the rest of the candidates the party is backing, might have relished the chance to stand on the same stage as Clinton et al, which might have brought some attention and resources to a party, and the party’s candidates, that are badly in need of both. But the Davis campaign was calling the shots. In the next couple months, we’ll see how this unusual dynamic plays out.

With so many positive developments over the last several weeks, it's worth noting that this negative one is really nothing more than a missed opportunity to build enthusiasm for all Democrats for November and beyond.  I hate to see the same old nervous, intimidated moderates continue to exert the most sway over party business, but that's how it's been for a long time.  There's still a solid puncher's chance that Dems can change their fortunes in four months, and closing whatever gap remains between defeat and victory still requires a lot of hard work and a little good luck.

Squandered chances, what-ifs, and other post mortems will be reserved for mid-November.