Lampson is not in for the Senate, and more bloggerrhea

Just a week ago I confidently posted that Nick Lampson would declare his challenge to Senator Box Turtle for the US Senate in 2008, but yesterday Lampson, through his local spokesperson Mustafa Tameez, told the Austin American-Statesman he was a no-go:

A Senate bid is “not going to happen,” Tameez said. “It sounds goofy, but he feels like he made a commitment to the people of Congressional District 22.” Tameez said Lampson feels a Senate try would be “disingenuous.”

I am delighted to have misread the tea leaves. Of course I am more inclined to believe that the blogswarm over his dithering forced him to reconsider, but that's only because I have an inflated sense of self-importance. And considering he's at the top of Karl Rove's hitlist, he'd better go to work right now nailing down his seat in the House.

Elsewhere:

-- "Lyndon Johnson's mistress claims LBJ told her that he had JFK killed!"

-- Paul Burka found Tom Craddick in a bald-face contradiction. I'm shockedIsay.

-- The terrorists are NOT going to follow us home (so stop staying that):

The President and his supporters have been repeatedly expressing their concern that if US troops left Iraq before the war is "won" as they define it, Al Qaeda in Iraq would follow us home and carry out their terror campaigns in the streets of America instead of Baghdad. Critics like myself are suggesting the President has chosen once again to engage in fear-mongering to try to manipulate American public opinion on the war. He has done so in a desperate attempt to rationalize our continued occupation in the hope of salvaging his, and his party's, legacy. In the end, his and his supporters' claims will be proven to be just as self-serving, misguided, and delusional as the claims they made leading up to the war in Iraq about Saddam's WMDs, mushroom clouds, and being greeted as liberators.

Ironically, the only way they would have followed us home would have been if George W. Bush had actually succeeded in imposing his will on the people of the Middle East. Then they would have followed us home for revenge, much like they did on 9/11. Otherwise, they are no more or less likely to follow us home any more than we did the British, or the Viet Cong did us.

-- The movie critic at FOX News loves Michael Moore's new movie, SiCKO. There's hope for everything.

-- New sponsors of this blog include the National Cheney Impeachment Poll. Here, have an Impeachmint.

Sunday Funnies (Memorial Day edition)

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.

Houston council candidate sued by his printer

I give Houston's most diminutive blogger a rough time, but in her capacity as MSM reporter she is quite often ahead of the curve the rest of us lowly keyboarders sit behind. She breaks this hilarious news:

Roy Morales, who is in the run-off race for City Council at large seat against Melissa Noriega, is being sued by a fellow Republican. And not just any Republican, he's being sued by the Bush/Cheney sign guy! Michael Franks, who is a big time R party printer for a gaggle of politicos, printed $1,700 worth of signs for Roy's LAST council campaign. A loss and a new election cycle later, Morales still hasn't paid him! At least according to court documents. There's a second suit filed as well, for alledged broken promise of giving Franks additional business. The amounts are small, both suits are less than $5,000 so they are in small claims court. I called the Morales campaign today, and its answer was: "What Lawsuit? We have no idea what you're talking about." Roy's campaign manager says neither he nor Morales had any idea what I'm talking about. The good news is, Roy and you can read the front pages of the lawsuits here, on my blog!

That this suit was filed in the middle of the runoff campaign season emphasizes how hapless the GOP is when it comes to municipal elections here.

Melissa Noriega is the only choice for my good neighbors (and the not-so-good ones, too).

E Howard Hunt said LBJ did it

But then denied it again before he died. Via Easter Lemming, Rolling Stone has the last confessions of E. Howard Hunt, which reveal more of the perpetually-rumored plot to assassinate JFK, which has also been reignited in the MSM recently ...

One evening in Eureka, over a barbecue meal, St. John (Hunt's son) explains how he first came to suspect that his father might somehow be involved in the Kennedy assassination. "Around 1975, I was in a phone booth in Maryland somewhere, when I saw a poster on a telephone pole about who killed JFK, and it had a picture of the three tramps. I saw that picture and I fucking -- like a cartoon character, my jaw dropped, my eyes popped out of my head, and smoke came out of my ears. It looks like my dad. There's nobody that has all those same facial features. People say it's not him. He's said it's not him. But I'm his son, and I've got a gut feeling."

He chews his sandwich. "And then, like an epiphany, I remember '63, and my dad being gone, and my mom telling me that he was on a business trip to Dallas. I've tried to convince myself that's some kind of false memory, that I'm just nuts, that it's something I heard years later. But, I mean, his alibi for that day is that he was at home with his family. I remember I was in the fifth grade. We were at recess. I was playing on the merry-go-round. We were called in and told to go home, because the president had been killed. And I remember going home. But I don't remember my dad being there. I have no recollection of him being there. And then he has this whole thing about shopping for Chinese food with my mother that day, so that they could cook a meal together." His father testified to this, in court, on more than one occasion, saying that he and his wife often cooked meals together.

St. John pauses and leans forward. "Well," he says, "I can tell you that's just the biggest load of crap in the fucking world. He was always looking at things like he was writing a novel; everything had to be just so glamorous and so exciting. He couldn't even be bothered with his children. That's not glamorous. James Bond doesn't have children. So my dad in the kitchen? Chopping vegetables with his wife? I'm so sorry, but that would never happen. Ever. That fucker never did jack-squat like that. Ever."

And this:

That time in Miami, with Saint (St. John) by his bed and disease eating away at him and him thinking he's six months away from death, E. Howard finally put pen to paper and started writing. Saint had been working toward this moment for a long while, and now it was going to happen. He got his father an A&W diet root beer, then sat down in the old man's wheelchair and waited.

E. Howard scribbled the initials "LBJ," standing for Kennedy's ambitious vice president, Lyndon Johnson. Under "LBJ," connected by a line, he wrote the name Cord Meyer. Meyer was a CIA agent whose wife had an affair with JFK; later she was murdered, a case that's never been solved. Next his father connected to Meyer's name the name Bill Harvey, another CIA agent; also connected to Meyer's name was the name David Morales, yet another CIA man and a well-known, particularly vicious black-op specialist. And then his father connected to Morales' name, with a line, the framed words "French Gunman Grassy Knoll."

So there it was, according to E. Howard Hunt. LBJ had Kennedy killed. It had long been speculated upon. But now E. Howard was saying that's the way it was. And that Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't the only shooter in Dallas. There was also, on the grassy knoll, a French gunman, presumably the Corsican Mafia assassin Lucien Sarti, who has figured prominently in other assassination theories.

The Stone's political blog National Affairs Daily continues the conversation. This site reveals the assassination as a mob plot; it is maintained by the retired G-man I had crawfish with one afternoon in Beaumont. I thought there was a post somewhere in the archives about this but I can't find it. Will have to recreate it if this business gets any more traction.

Sunday Funnies