Craddick Coup continues today

There was a revolt last night in the Texas House.

BOR followed the action (several other threads provided play-by-play as well). The House parliamentarians resigned due to the dictatorial will of Speaker Craddick. He replaced them with his stooge, former Rep. Terry Keel, who literally fed the Speaker his lines. (Muse had the quick wit on this comic drama.) Craddick refused to recognize motions -- even from Republicans like Fred Hill -- to consider the vacation of the chair.

Parliamentary procedure denied, the House was in an uproar most of the late evening and early morning, at the end of the legislative session, with numerous bills still to be considered. An historical pandemonium -- not since 1871 has a motion to vacate the chair been advanced -- and Craddick declared that occurrence divined no precedent in this case. He declared that any attempt to remove him would have to be an impeachment proceeding, requiring a two/thirds majority of the House's members to advance.

Update (ten minutes after original post): Via Eye on Williamson, John Kelso applies the, uh, coup de grace:

Mention Craddick’s name and the words “mean,” “small” and “autocratic” come up. I’ve heard him called autocratic so often I’m surprised they haven’t started calling him Otto — as in “Otto” Craddick.

So nevermind being civilized.

Just wait till he’s not there. Then send a moving crew of members into his posh 2,000-square-foot apartment behind the House chamber, and leave his stuff out on the Capitol lawn on bulky trash day.

Today the House reconvenes, at 11 a.m. Quite a few more of us will be watching.

Bush won't fire Abu Gonzales, so let's do it for him

Sparrow makes statement on Bush's statement on Gonzales

ABC's Ann Compton reports: An outdoor news conference in perfect spring weather, with birds chirping loudly in the magnolia trees, is not without its hazards.

As President Bush took a question Thursday in the White House Rose Garden about scandals involving his Attorney General, he remarked, "I've got confidence in Al Gonzales doin' the job."

Simultaneously, a sparrow flew overhead and left a splash on the President's sleeve, which Bush tried several times to wipe off.

No word on whether the on-the-sleeve incident can be successfully cleaned in the White House spin cycle.

Video here: http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3209176

Ron Paul: Rudy needs to read up

I just love the way Dr. No is making the GOP crazy:

"I'm giving Mr. Giuliani a reading assignment," the nine-term Texas congressman said as he stood behind a stack of books that included the report by the commission that examined the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. ...

"I don't think he's qualified to be president," Paul said of Giuliani. "If he was to read the book and report back to me and say, 'I've changed my mind,' I would reconsider."

Among the books on Paul's reading list were: "Dying to Win," which argues that suicide bombers only mobilize against an occupying force; "Blowback," which examines the unintended consequences of U.S. foreign policy; and the 9/11 Commission Report, which says that al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was angered by the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia. Another book on the list was "Imperial Hubris," whose author appeared at the press conference to offer support for Paul.

"Foreign policy is about protecting America," said author Michael Scheuer, who used to head the CIA's bin Laden unit. "Our foreign policy is doing the opposite."

A Giuliani campaign official could not confirm whether he had read any of the books on Paul's list.

Since an assortment of lunatics on the right fringe were incensed by Paul's insinuations after last week's Republican pukefest debate, I'll look forward to more sputtering indignation from over there in short order.

Has Lampson been "chosen"? Is Watts anti-choice?

The two early "front-runners" for the right to challenge John Cornyn in 2008 have been generating some undesirable blog coverage of late. To wit, my friend Boadicea:

As Rep Nick Lampson continues recovering from his heart surgery, he's making plans for his political future that seem likely to leave a lot of his supporters in the district very unhappy.
The Battle for TX-22 was a hard fought one in 2006. Replacing a wounded Delay (who left the race after the primary in vain hope of allowing the RPT to name a successor) took the combined efforts of a determined candidate, the DCCC and other established Dem powers, and bloggers and other activists sowing blue seeds in a determinedly red district.
One of the frequent questions at house parties dealt with the "carpetbagger" meme the right wing was smearing Lampson with. In response candidate Lampson always said he was not running as a one off, but to be the Rep from TX-22 for many years to come.
Now incumbent Rep. Lampson seems preparing an altogether different tune, as the rumors swell that pressure is on to clear the field to anoint him as the Senate candidate against beleaguered John Cornyn (R-Box Turtle).
Not only is he preparing for different race, but apparently having exhausted his rolodex looking for a Dem to step in and run, he's now wooing a Republican, Tom Abraham, to crossover and run on the Dem ticket. What are the odds?

I attended the Texas Democratic Party's town hall last Saturday at the University of Houston, and it was obvious to me that Lampson was being anointed as the party's standard-bearer for the Senate '08.

I like Nick Lampson. A lot. I first voted for him when I lived in Jefferson County in the '80's when he ran for tax-assessor/collector. I went to high school with one of his nieces; we were in drama classes and UIL competitions together. I've known Nick for decades, and I have supported his candidacy for every office he has stood for.

But he won't be my choice for Senator.

He's run to the left and governed to the right as a Congressman, both in the 2nd as well as the 22nd. He supports the war in Iraq, opposes cutting off the funding for it, and has had observed difficulty declaring his unqualified support for women's reproductive freedom. He is beholden to the consultantocracy for their help in getting him back to Washington, and he's leaning heavily on their advice again as he plans his next promotion (look for him to announce around June 1).

Like my man David, I want the people to decide who runs, not the elites.

Which brings me to super-lawyer Mikal Watts, late of San Antonio, and even though the bipartisan Texas Shark Watch hates the guy (which usually earns a person stars in my ledger) RG Ratcliffe's entry today at the Chronic's very good Texas Politics blog has more disturbing news. Under the headline "Is Mikal Watts an anti-abortion Democrat for the US Senate?"

A Republican recently told me that San Antonio lawyer Mikal Watts was doing a poll to explore a 2008 race challenging the re-election of Republican U.S. Sen. John Cornyn.
The poll supposedly included a question like: If you knew John Cornyn was pro-choice, would you support a pro-life Democrat for U.S. Senate?

Austin pollster Jeff Smith confirmed that he was polling for Watts, but he said what was reported by the Republican was a "distortion" of the question on the poll. However, Smith declined to describe the language used in the poll, saying it was proprietary information belonging to Watts.

That was more than a week ago. Since that time, I have left repeated messages at Watts' law offices in San Antonio and Corpus Christi to ask him about the question on his poll.

Watts has yet to call me back.

So we can only wonder whether he's the Democrat in question in the poll; whether he's personally opposed to abortion but supports a woman's right to choose whether to have one; or whether he would run as an anti-abortion candidate?
Cornyn in 2003 received a 0 percent rating from the National Abortion Rights Action League, not exactly the "pro-choice" candidate the question implies.

I'd like a straight answer to the questions Ratcliffe is asking you, Mr. Watts.

And I'd also like to see our nascent populist movement for a people's candidate gain some traction by hearing the candidate announce his candidacy.

Update (5/24, a.m.): A commenter at the Chronblog link above notes that he took the survey in question, and the question ...

...if you knew Watts was a pro-life democrat, would this make you much more likely, more likely, etc.

This makes much more sense than having Cornyn's name and 'pro-choice' mentioned together.
Update (5/24, p.m.): Markos underscores ...

Cornyn is surprisingly unpopular. We can win this one, but not with Nick Lampson.

"Traders to the United States"

ABC News breaks the story of a CIA covert operation inside Iran:

The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert "black" operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell The Blotter on ABCNews.com.

The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say President Bush has signed a "nonlethal presidential finding" that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financial transactions.

And the FReepers respond. The comments following were posted at the link above and are quoted in their entirety, including lousy spelling, punctuation, and grammar.

David Reid thought we were opening trade negotiations:

"If it was a secret, it isn't any longer. I will turn off ABC News and never watch again.

I consider ABC News Traders to the United States"

Philip R. Cramer says:

"Seems you & the media will go to any extreme to show you bias agains the Bush Administration. Revealing classified operations is consorting with the enemy. I hope you can live with your tresonous actions!!!!!!"

concerned thinks Mr. Ross' stories are "obsured". How obsured?:

"Not so secret anymore is it? This is why more than half of the stories Brian Ross reports are obsured. If it's so secret how'd did your team get the scoop? Secondly, if it is true, you should be arrested for espionage."

At least Tim has learned to spell "morons":

"I hope they do destabelize the government of Iran. The stoy would be if you had suggestions for readers to HELP you morons!"

Margie Davis thinks that the President should put a stop to that pesky First Amendment:

"ABC News: Please stop helping our enemys. I don't understand why you would tell our business to everyone in the world. Mr. President can't we stop this reporting???"

Susan H. has a point here....somewhere:

"Wouldn't we rather be fighting a covert war to destabilze Iran than a war in the streets? If we were fighting a war in the streets in cities of Iran ABC would be bringing us the "dreadful" news every night."

stephen is, well, a little miffed:

"who thinks abc news and others are part to blame for our soliders being killed for leaking to m u c h information.. think about it, dont you think the bad guys watch and read this crap?"

stephen hare gives me pause. I'm not sure whether he is kidding or not:

"we want responsible news networks like fox news!!!!!!!! they would never stoop this low."

Nicole thinks we live in Latte Land:

"To anyone condoning ABC's action in reporting this story citing constitutional rights and freedom... I could ALMOST agree with you if we were in a DRAFT situation like Vietnam. At that time, men were FORCED to participate in the war. Today, you have BRAVE men and women CHOOSING to defend your country, your freedoms. Don't they deserve safety? While you sit and blog, thanking the press from your comfy desk or cafe laptop, take a moment to think outside of your latte land. Each day out there may be their last, and stories like this don't improve the odds. Think before you speak."

Finally, I have to agree with David Lemieux. Almost. Until...:

"Oh GOD! What do we do!!?? The Iranians knew nothing of our covert doings until YOU, ABC, decided it was fitting to foil our entire destabilization strategy. Let us, the real Americans, rise up with the force of Jehovah's thunder and take back our most holy country from the depraved media who seeks to destroy us with their treason, lies, and rap music. Grrrr. *side note* I almost posted this as is until I realized, unfortunately, that a slim majority of folks on here wouldn't sense the sarcasm."

There's more like this (if you can stand it).

Keeping us safe from the horrors of free expression

The Simpsons tore the administration and the media a new one for their 400th episode last night:

Friends, the press and the government are in bed together in an embrace so intimate and wrong, they could spoon on a twin mattress and still have room for Ted Koppel. Journalists used to questions the reasons for war and expose abuse of power. Now, like toothless babies, they suckle on the sugary teat of misinformation and poop it into the diaper we call the 6:00 News. Demand more of your government. Demand more of your press.

Commentator Kent Brockman went even further, revealing that the FOX network -- which has carried The Simpsons for all 400 episodes -- deliberately runs shows that will earn fines to funnel money through the FCC to the Republican Party.

Of course, Brockman couldn't bring himself to turn down the 50% raise to keep his mouth shut.

Earlier, Homer spilled a hot cup of coffee on Brockman, prompting the anchorman to blurt out "a word so vile it should only be uttered by Satan himself while sitting on the toilet." Asked why he was protesting, Ned Flanders replied, "Imploring people I never met to pressure a government with better things to do to punish a man who meant no harm for something nobody even saw."

Go watch.