Abbott's World

The response to the Attorney General's brazen partisan plays reached a crescendo among both the traditional media and the blogosphere last week. Read these reactions:

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott four months ago urged Republicans to give former U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay another two years in office. Abbott on Friday urged a federal appeals court to let Republicans replace DeLay on the general election ballot.

R.G. Ratcliffe, Houston Chronicle

Equally misguided is Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott's decision to intervene in the case. He has every right to file a friend of the court brief, but his stated reason shows a slight grasp of the particulars of the case.

A spokeswoman for Abbott said Sparks had declared a portion of the Texas election code unconstitutional. In fact, neither the Democratic Party that sued to keep DeLay on the ballot nor the judge made that argument.

The judge actually ruled that the U.S. Constitution sets eligibility for congressional candidates and that a candidate's residency can be determined only on Election Day. GOP officials had declared DeLay ineligible after he won the party primary but moved his official residence to Virginia. DeLay and his wife continue to maintain their house in Sugar Land.

For the Texas attorney general to use the resources of the state to help his party win a favorable court judgment would be an intolerable conflict of interest. If Abbott does file a brief, it should recognize that Texas law prevents parties from replacing unpopular primary winners such as DeLay with stronger candidates — exactly what the state GOP is trying to do.

Houson Chronicle editorial

Yesterday's story that Attorney General Greg Abbott would file a amicus brief in an effort to have the Fifth Circuit reverse Judge Sam Sparks ruling that Tom DeLay could not be replaced on the ballot ignited quite a bit of conversation, especially among outraged Democrats. They argue that the AG's participation is improper because Sparks' decision did not find Texas law unconstitutional -- the predicate for an Attorney General's intervention.

As part of the trial, Secretary of State Roger Williams' office submitted an amicus letter to the federal district court outlining the time line and mandatory election deadlines that were in play. At the conclusion of the letter, SOS General Counsel James Trainor wrote, "As noted above, the Secretary of State does not currently take a position as to how the court rules on the merits of the case before it."

However, today Williams' spokesman Scott Haywood said that Sparks' ruling had the effect of declaring some part of the statute unconstitutional. Although he had not yet seen the amicus brief, he said the intent of the brief was, " to insure that the election code and the statute is not found as being unconstitutional."

But Democrats are insistent that nothing in Sparks' ruling undermines the statute and argue that something else is at play. The ruling simply enjoins Republican Party of Texas chairman Tina Benkiser from declaring DeLay ineligible and prevents the Secretary of State from certifying any other candidate to be on the ballot.

Quorum Report (7/20/06)


The blogs were quite a bit more direct, as usual:

In what can be called the biggest pair of flip flops ever seen, Greg Abbott rolls over for Tom DeLay, first by urging voters to support DeLay in the primary, then supporting DeLay's right to quit on the voters after the primary.

Bay Area Houston

So why is Greg Abbott using his office to help the GOP avoid the mess DeLay made? Why is the AG writing that Tom DeLay should be allowed to manipulate the law and parties should be allowed to switch out an unpopular candidate in the middle of a race? Why is Abbott kow-towing to lawlessness and electoral chaos?

I bet you David Van Os could tell you why....

The View from 22

Why the state has such a vested interest in making sure DeLay can be replaced is pretty unclear. If the state wanted to make sure the people of CD-22 were represented, Governor Perry should have called on DeLay to resign earlier and set a special election. But, they didn’t take that route, and now the state is doing its best not to live with those consequences.

Capitol Annex

Under the "Republicans Have Less Shame Than a Pavement Princess" Department, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who is about as worthless as cornflake recipes, filed an amicus brief in favor of -- hold on, now -- the Texas Republican Party.

There are incest laws in this State, dammit.

Juanita's - The World's Most Dangerous Beauty Salon

I wonder what will convince Texans we need a new Attorney General. Greg Abbott is not a friend to Texans (to say he is weak on consumer issues is giving him too much credit), but some people will vote against their own interests. His campaign is bankrolled by his corporate cronies who have him in their pockets (the ever ubiquitous Bob Perry, for one). Some people just ignore that. His latest shenanigans make you wonder if he understands even basic legal issues, which you would think would be in the minimum job requirements for becoming attorney general of a whole state.

Muse's musings


What, indeed?

Perhaps most revealing is the criticism that comes not from the blogs or the corporate media but from The Conservative Voice:

So of course I decided to look into this Greg Abbott guy. And what do you think I found? Big Oil connections up the wazoo. It appears that Texans have been pressing for some time for Abbott to lay bare his business dealings with one John Colyandro, a central figure in the Tom DeLay-TRMPAC money-laundering scandal who also served on Greg Abbott’s campaign payroll during the same time frame in 2002. Colyandro is also the spokesman for Koch Holdings, LLC, which owns a group of companies engaged in trading, operations and investment worldwide. According to their profile, these companies “have a presence in nearly 60 countries in core industries such as trading, petroleum, energy…” In short, the company is involved, among its many other interests, in Texas crude oil production. ...

There are few things that raise as much frustration and are a threat to our national economy, as well as personal and business finances, as escalating gasoline prices. It’s bad enough when Big Oil itself engages in practices deserving of prosecution under RICO (the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act), but it’s even more heinous when Americans like Greg Abbott - who are beholden to uphold the law - conspire to quash commerce and industry’s efforts to give Americans respite from this national economic crisis.

David Van Os could not have said it any better than that. Well, maybe a little bit better...

Take a close look at this picture

It was taken last week during the G-8 summit in St. Petersburg. Look at Bush, and look at Putin looking at Bush. (Click on the photo for a larger, clearer picture; Blogger slightly distorts these when they are translated.)

Now look at the beer bottle in front of Bush.

And what appears to be more beers chilling in a bucket next to the buffet table.

Look again at the two men.

Feingold, Clark, Edwards, Warner

That's the order from one to four of the top vote-getters in the Daily Kos presidential straw poll for July/August.

Over 12,000 respondents, with "Other" and "No Freakin' Clue" continuing to out-poll Senator Clinton along with her fellow DLC-ers. The netroots no likey them.

My personal preference remains General Clark, but the man whose name I hear mentioned most often offline is John Edwards. Senator Feingold is slated to speak to Houston Democrats at the annual Johnson-Rayburn Dinner in September.

Not just Iowa and New Hampshire any more

This is a hell of a good idea:

Democrats are on track to jumble the states in the presidential primary calendar in response to growing criticism that the same predominantly white states hold many of the cards in early voting. And not even complaints from a former president and a half-dozen White House hopefuls can stop them.

Iowa would still go first in the new calendar, but a Western state -- possibly Nevada or Arizona -- would be wedged in before the New Hampshire primary. A Southern state -- possibly Alabama or South Carolina -- would follow New Hampshire.

The national Democrats' rules and bylaws committee expects to vote on the proposal this weekend.

Critical Democratic constituencies such as blacks and Hispanics have clamored for a major role in early primary voting, arguing that Iowa and New Hampshire are hardly reflective of a diverse electorate.

Iowa's population is 95 percent white, New Hampshire's is 96.2 percent, according to the latest Census numbers.

Lots more, including the revealing demographics, at the link. This makes sense for so many reasons I can't count them all. For one: how many times have you been irritated that the candidate winning IA or NH went on to become our nominee, eliminating your personal favorite almost before he got out of the gate?

I just can't wait to see which southern and southwestern states they pick. My guess is that it will be the ones whose media costs the least, which would seem to make NM and Alabam' the favorites.

I'll update this post with the official announcement.

Update (7/22): So much for my powers of divine prophecy; it's Nevada and South Carolina, subject to final approval ...

Democrats bucked decades of tradition Saturday by moving to wedge the state of Nevada between the long-standing one-two punch of Iowa and New Hampshire in the leadoff nominating contests for president in 2008.

In an effort to provide more diversity in early voting, the Democrats' rules and bylaws committee recommended that Nevada be allowed to hold a caucus the Saturday after Iowa's leadoff caucus — likely to be held Jan. 14. The rules panel also awarded South Carolina an early primary, which would be held a week after New Hampshire's Jan. 22 primary.

The full Democratic National Committee will have to approve during its August meeting in Chicago before the changes are put in place.