The GOP's fissures (and a possible brokered convention)

I would really like to be blogging more about the Democratic's presidential candidates, but the Repukes are just too entertaining to ignore.

This is the kind of fantastical speculation I enjoy making, as well as reading -- and it's certainly on the minds of quite a few conservatives, you can bet. First, BooMan, and the backstory has to do with John McCain's lawyering up over his relationship with that Washington lobbyist (no, it's not sexual; just click over for the explanation then pick it back up here):

If John McCain does not emerge as the Republican nominee, there's a good likelihood that the GOP is going to be in for a long, strange ride. Let's walk though this.

If Mike Huckabee wins in Iowa, I expect McCain to surge ahead of Romney in New Hampshire and win that state. This will set up a death match between McCain and Huckabee that will go down to the wire. Giuliani could conceivably get into the mix by winning Florida, but he seems too damaged by recent scandals to have much hope. Fred Thompson will go nowhere.

But if McCain has some bad news in the next three weeks that prevents him from capitalizing on a Huckabee win in Iowa, then Romney will likely prevail in the Granite State. We could easily see McCain, Thompson, and Duncan Hunter drop out after New Hampshire or South Carolina. We could see Giuliani drop out after Florida. And we'll be left with Huckabee, Romney, and Ron Paul. And Ron Paul will have enough money to compete everywhere on Super Duper Tuesday, while Huckabee will not, and Romney will have to spend his own fortune.

Even in this scenario, I do not expect Ron Paul to win the nomination, or even any states (although he could win a couple). But he could easily rack up a fifth of the available delegates in a three-way race. Imagine the Republican convention if Ron Paul has the third biggest block of delegates.

Let's go even further here. Assuming that Romney's delegates are more Mormon than his overall universe of support and that Huckabee's delegates are more Southern Baptist than his overall universe of support, and that Ron Paul's delegates are... well... the most enthusiastic and dedicated of Ron Paul's supporters... the Minneapolis convention is going to be a assembly of the cultural fringe. It's hard to picture your average Martha's Vineyard Republican fitting in, exactly.

The Democratic competition is no less fluid, but all the candidates are at least culturally acceptable to the whole range of the Democratic electorate. Our convention will be one big inclusive feel-good party no matter who wins the nomination.

I guess my question is: what will it mean for the GOP over the short to medium term if their convention is completely dominated by Huckabee, Romney, and Paul supporters?

Why, it could mean a brokered convention and perhaps a Newt Gingrich nomination. That kind of deal precludes Paul running third party, especially if he gets promised some plum Cabinet job like Secretary of Commerce. Romney becomes the vice-presidential nominee strictly on the basis of his money, and Huckabee gets to be Secretary of Christianity Implementation.

Maybe Dubya could be a uniter and not a divider after all.

As one of BT's commenters notes, our worst-case November scenario is Hillary Clinton vs. John McCain, and I would add 'with no third-party conservative candidate'. Our generic best-case is anybody vs. Huckabee.

And since this post is about the Repugs, I'm sure I forgot to mention that John Edwards is surging in Iowa while Hillary and Obama beat each other up.

Tancredo self-deports

Ha Ha Ha Ha.

Run third party, you lunatic, and let's see exactly how much support your one-issue candidacy actually has.

It has been demonstrated repeatedly, most recently this week in the suburbs of Fort Worth, that immigration is wedging the Republican base. Even Karl Rove and Dubya know it's a loser, yet still the Nativists wail and gnash their teeth.

Keep at it for at least another year, please. Make illegal immigration the core issue in every single statehouse, Congressional, and Senate and judicial race on the ballot.

Pretty please. Morons.

Update: (12/22): Welcome Lone Star Diary click-overs (all three of you)! You're exactly who I'm talking to -- but only if you completely agree with the moron who runs that one-note blog. Happy Holidays!

Last-minute Christmas shopping postpourri

-- at last night's HCDP Holiday Party, I met Dan Grant and Michael Skelly and Bert Moser (another of our highly qualified candidates for justice on the 14th Court of Appeals) and Dale Henry, whose campaign has this pretty excellent video up:



Unfortunately I also got word that one of my favorite judicial candidates from the last cycle, Chuck Silverman, was not going to make the race this time.

-- We have a candidate for Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court: Jim Jordan of Dallas.

Update (12/21): Jordan's bio (courtesy Quorum Report's Daily Buzz, their emphasis):

Jordan, a veteran civil defense attorney and past member of the Texas Association of Defense Counsel, noted a serious backlog in cases at the state’s highest court. "They are failing to do their work as the backlog in cases has reached record levels."

Jordan, who currently presides over the 160^th District Court in Dallas, is Board Certified in Civil Trial Law — a certification earned by less than 2% of Texas Lawyers.

"When the system is broken, the responsibility must fall on the leader," Jordan noted, explaining his decision to seek the Chief Justice position. "I am running for Chief Justice because this Court has lost its way. Instead of upholding the law, it is advancing an ideology," Jordan added, referring to a recent study released by a University of Texas law professor that criticized the court for routinely exceeding its Constitutional authority, ignoring the role of juries, and using the bench to make policy instead of deciding questions of law.

Jordan, who first presided over the 44^th District Court in Dallas, was a partner with the firm Shannon, Gracey, Ratliff & Miller before returning to the bench. In 2006, he won election to the 160^th District Court.

Jordan caught the Dallas County blue wave in 2006 and hopes to repeat the feat statewide next year. I of course think he's onto something.

-- Pooty Poot is TIME's Man. Well, "I" can't win every year (and neither can "you").

-- Nope, nobody cares what Joe Lieberman does any more. And I mean Nooooobody.

-- How the Iowa caucuses work, and why John Edwards will win: because he's almost everybody's second choice (and why Hillary will trail -- because she is nearly no one's).

-- A Mafia museum in Vegas. Can't wait to see it.

-- The NSA has real-time access to your e-mail. Yes, yours. In my case they probably think I have both ED and a small penis, not to mention being a Wall Street penny stock tycoon and an important business associate of several Nigerian concerns.

A master's degree in Creation Science

When it comes to the Texas Education Agency, you CAN make this shit up (and, sadly, it will be accurate):

A Texas higher education panel has recommended allowing a Bible-based group called the Institute for Creation Research to offer online master’s degrees in science education.

The "Institute for Creation Research". Their library and archives consist of one book.

The state’s commissioner of higher education, Raymund A. Paredes, said late Monday that he was aware of the institute’s opposition to evolution but was withholding judgment until the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board meets Jan. 24 to rule on the recommendation, made last Friday, by the board’s certification advisory council.

Henry Morris III, the chief executive of the Institute for Creation Research, said Tuesday that the proposed curriculum, taught in California, used faculty and textbooks “from all the top schools” along with, he said, the “value added” of challenges to standard teachings of evolution.

“Where the difference is, we provide both sides of the story,” Mr. Morris said. On its Web site, the institute declares, “All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the creation week” and says it “equips believers with evidences of the Bible’s accuracy and authority through scientific research, educational programs, and media presentations, all conducted within a thoroughly biblical framework.”

It also says “the harmful consequences of evolutionary thinking on families and society (abortion, promiscuity, drug abuse, homosexuality and many others) are evident all around us.”

"Both sides of the story". Aha. Fair and balanced. Note that the critical thinking comes in when they survey the evidence "all around us". Wait, it gets better:

Asked how the institute could educate students to teach science, Dr. Paredes, who holds a doctorate in American civilization from the University of Texas and served 10 years as vice chancellor for academic development at the University of California, said, “I don’t know. I’m not a scientist.”

He said he had no ready explanation for the panel’s recommendation. “I asked about the decision,” Dr. Paredes said Monday in a phone interview from Austin. “I got a three-inch-thick folder an hour ago. We’re going to give it a full review.” But, he said, “If it’s approved, we’ll make sure it’s of high quality.”

Approval would allow the institute, which moved to Dallas this year from near San Diego, to offer the online graduate program almost immediately while seeking accreditation from national academic authorities like the Southern Association of Schools and Colleges within two years.

This comes, as you may recall, on the heels of this:

The action comes weeks after the Texas Education Agency’s director of science, Christine Castillo Comer, lost her job after superiors accused her of displaying bias against creationism and failing to be “neutral” over the teaching of evolution. ...

Last month, in a sign that Texas was being drawn deeper into creationism controversy, Ms. Comer, 57, was put under pressure to resign as science director after forwarding an e-mail message about a talk by a creationism critic, Barbara Forrest, a professor at Southeastern Louisiana State University.

Lizzette Reynolds, a deputy commissioner who called for Ms. Comer’s dismissal, later told The Austin American-Statesman she was surprised she resigned. Ms. Reynolds did not respond to a message left at her office.

The Texas Education commissioner, Robert Scott, told The Dallas Morning News that Ms. Comer was not forced out over the message, adding, “You can be in favor of science without bashing people’s faith.” He did not return phone calls to his office.

Ms. Comer said the commissioner should show her where she was bashing anyone’s faith. “He just doesn’t get it,” she said.

Res ipsa loquitur. And rather than add any editorial comment to the news above, let me simply say that I believe it's time Texas had a post-baccalaureate degree program in Pastafarianism. Who's with me?

Another Democrat elected to the Texas House (from a formerly GOP district)

Harvey Kronberg:

IN A STUNNER, DEMOCRAT BARRETT CLAIMS HD 97 RUNOFF

Democrat Dan Barrett leads HD 97 runoff with 52.74 percent of vote. Holds a 538-vote lead over Republican Mark Shelton.

A few boxes remain to be counted, but the spread between Dan Barrett and Mark Shelton has held steady all evening.

Although Barrett was the top vote getter in the first round of the special election, few thought he would win the runoff against the GOP candidate who presumably would have the Republican base united behind him.

The Democrat takes the seat of one of the Speaker's most loyal backers, retired state Rep. Anna Mowery. Barrett won't have much time to rest as he will have to defend his seat in the November general elections.

Harvey manages to find the only downbeat thing to say about the outcome: Barrett may not ever get to sit in the chair in the Capitol unless Governor 39% calls a special session before January 2009, because he must stand again for election in eleven months. But the repudiation of Texas House Republicans and their leader continues to be demonstrated at the ballot box.

Burnt Orange called it early and had the superior play-by-play. Boyd Richie states the game plain:

"I congratulate our newest Democratic State Representative Dan Barrett on his victory in House District 97. In an election marred with dirty tricks and Craddick cronies, Dan ran as an independent voice, who could be trusted to stand up against Tom Craddick's special interest agenda and fight for the best interests of Texas families.

Dan Barrett won in a district drawn by Republicans to elect a Republican, and his victory is a slap in the face to Speaker Tom Craddick and the failed Republican leadership in this state. Voters have sent a message that they are tired of "business as usual" in Austin and want leaders who will replace the pay-to-play politics of the Republican Party with a state government that works for all Texans."

Update (12/19): Paul Burka was waaaaaaaaaaay wrong. And graciously admits his error while explaining how he made it, through large bites of humble pie. Be sure to read all the comments. Kuffner adds some more, including an excerpt from Bud Kennedy at the Startlegram that detailed the Shelton losing situation on the ground.

And about my local judicials

This past weekend I attended a workshop on "How to be a Delegate at the 2008 Democratic National Convention", at which several of my local judicial candidates were in attendance, working the room for support. Here's a bit about each of the ones I visited with:

Bruce Mosier, 190th civil district court. With forty years of experience as a litigator and mediator, a board-certified attorney in commercial and residential real estate law, and a long history of Democratic activism, Mosier tries again for the civil court place he barely missed in 2006. He counts as supporters Sheila Jackson Lee, state Sens. John Whitmire and Mario Gallegos, and state Rep. Jessica Farrar. Here's what my blog hermano Greg Wythe said about Mosier in 2004:

One of the comments John Kerry made in the debates about judges was a well taken point: the sign of a good judge is that when you read the final opinion or ruling, you don't know which party the author was .... you just know it was fair and well reasoned. Those two qualities, Bruce Mosier possesses in great abundance over the Rubber Stamp appointment of Governor Perry.

Martin Siegel, 14th Court of Appeals. Siegel is running for an associate justice position on the 14th, which covers Harris, Galveston, Fort Bend and seven more counties in southeast Texas. Siegel served as an assistant US Attorney in the Southern District of New York and as special counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee (where he worked on election reform, the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill, criminal justice, immigration and other issues). In 2006, Siegel successfully represented the Texas Democratic Party in its suit to prevent the Republican Party of Texas from replacing Tom DeLay on the general election ballot for Congress following DeLay's withdrawal as a candidate. Siegel wrote the TDP's briefs in the Fifth Circuit on an expedited schedule and co-argued the appeal, resulting in the well-known victory for the TDP (which ultimately gave us Nick Lampson in the 22nd Congressional district).

Larry Weiman, 80th civil district court. Weiman is another of our returning judicial candidates, having garnered 48% in his 2006 run (just so you're clear on the size of Harris County's electorate, that 48% was 263,507 votes). Weiman's reputation as a potential jurist is so solid that Republicans recruited him to run in past elections, but with a long family history as a Yellow Dog Democrat, he declined to do so.

Fred Cook, 215th civil district court. Cook is also a Democratic activist, having served as chair of his precinct and election judge for the past four years. But it's his 25 years as a litigator, a past director of the Houston Bar Association's litigation division, and the AV rating from Martindale Hubbard -- the highest possible peer rating for ethics and legal ability -- that distinguishes his candidacy.

Harold J Landreneau, Justice of the Peace 1-1. Landreneau is running for the JP position that represents my area, having served the court as chief clerk for the past 8 years. In addition to being an attorney he's also an ASFCME member and formerly a vice-president for the Heights Area Democrats. A lifelong Democrat, he traveled to New Hampshire in 2000 to volunteer for Al Gore's presidential campaign there.

I'll be profiling more of my favorite judicials running in 2008, from Susan Criss to Leslie Taylor to Mike Englehart to Chuck Silverman to Al Bennett to Goodwille Pierre.

Dale Henry for the Texas Railroad Commission

In more favorite candidate news today, one of mine from the 2006 cycle announced his bid for the TRC: Dale Henry.

“The (Texas Railroad) Commissioners have just stuck their head in the sand when it comes to public safety and our environment. As a result of their failure to use their statutory authority to require gas companies to replace faulty couplings in the Dallas area, two elderly Texans have died. And, the commission has simply looked the other way as saltwater injection wells have polluted the water supply up and down the Barnett Shale region in North Texas and in other areas of the state,” Henry said.

My blog hermana TxSharon has covered the topic Barnett Shale pollution extensively. More on the oil and gas man who's concerned about the environment:

“It is pretty hard to properly regulate the oil and gas industry when you are taking hundreds of thousands of dollars from their political action committees and executives,” Henry said. “The Railroad Commission doesn’t rule for the public anymore, they rule for the people lining their campaign warchests. I will work to get legislation passed to prohibit Railroad Commissioners from taking money from the industries the Commission is supposed to regulate,” he said.

Here's Dale speaking at the Texas Democratic Party's 2006 convention:



Henry is by far the best choice for progressives in the March 2008 Democratic primary for the Texas Railroad Commission.

Michael Skelly for Congress, 7th District

My district.

Ever since Mrs. Diddie and I moved into CD-07 earlier this year, we've searched for the candidate to to take on John Cumbersome. I asked Barbara Radnofsky at a meeting of Cy-Fair Democrats if she was was going to run, and she said, "No. Are you?"

Very funny, Bar.

I kept hearing that Jim Henley, the challenger in '06, was in, then out. I took a lunch meeting just last month with a fellow who said he was running; he still is, just not as a Dem. And I had heard something about an executive with a wind energy company who was born in Ireland, who served in the Peace Corps and spoke fluent Spanish, and who was capable of self-funding a run for Congress, but I couldn't figure out who it was.

Today, in my inbox (and in the Chronicle) I got my answer:

Skelly, of West University Place, is chief development officer for Horizon Wind, which investor Michael Zilkha of Houston and his father, Selim, bought about seven years ago for $6 million. This year a Portuguese utility company bought the firm for about $2.2 billion.

Brought to the United States as a child after being born to Irish parents in England, Skelly would not discuss how much money he will put into his campaign. Candidates can spend an unlimited amount on their own behalf, and in past Houston-area campaigns some have laid out more than $3 million to get elected.

He obviously is familiar with his opponent:

Culberson, he said, has "never met a problem he couldn't make worse." Skelly said the congressman has failed to work with local government officials to help solve mass transit problems, for example.

Which naturally can't be said of the incumbent:

"Who?" Culberson said today when asked by telephone about Skelly's candidacy for the November general election. Moments later he said Skelly's remarks are "pretty standard boilerplate Nancy Pelosi liberal Democratic spin."

Culberson, 49, said he never takes an election victory for granted, but "will continue to stay focused on doing the job I have done for the people of District 7 which they clearly approve of."

Clearly not. Just read the comments at the Chron link. Then again, Congressman Culberson is molded in the image of his idol, Tom DeLay; he's ignorant, ideological, and built to stay that way.

It sure will be nice to have some actual representation in DC in about a year. Charles Kuffner's post from last year is instructive as regards the math associated with a successful Democratic challenge in the district. I'll let Skelly finish the introduction of himself:

Ron Paul quotes Sinclair Lewis

Faux news anchors' heads explode:



His response to Mike Huckabee's ad portraying the former Arkansas governor as the Chosen One was to employ the phrase that used to be this blog's signature: "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."

I speak from personal experience, Dr. No: calling it fascism exposes you to backlash. Too many Americans don't know what fascism is and wouldn't recognize it if they did. It's right in front of their eyes but they just cannot see it. The fact that George W Bush refers to 'the terrists' as "Islamofascists" is one big clue to the depth of American ignorance on the topic.

It doesn't matter how much money you raise, Mr. Paul, you're never going to get the Republican nomination telling them the brutal truth. Oh yeah, your crossover appeal, what with that abolishing Social Security/free trade/life begins at conception thingie: that's not gonna fly either.

The Libertarians need you badly, though. It's where you belong.

Presidents' Heads in Pearland

There's an online presidential poll that needs your input, please. Somewhat outside the mainstream for this time of the year.

(Pearland, regular readers here may recall, is nestled in the gumbo mud of the Texas coastal plain five miles to the south of Houston, and is also the home of Bobby Eberle, he of Talon News/Jeff Gannon fame (in addition to serving as the vice-chairman of the Republican Party of Texas). Pearland also claims as city councilman one Kevin Cole, who defended Tom DeLay in a rather humorous e-mail to DroptheHammer.org back when DeLay was still defensible to many Republicans. Cole was a deacon of the First Baptist Church of Pearland, which was the launching pad for Pastor Rick Scarborough of Vision America, a man of God working hard to inherit the mantle vacated by Jerry Falwell.)

My Five were Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR and LBJ, and in the comments I added that the only bushes that needed to be on display were the tightly trimmed shrubs lining the entrance to the park.

John Edwards and Iowa.

For months, Edwards has been rounding up support in the state's rural precincts where the front runners have paid less attention. While Obama and Clinton have drawn crowds in the thousands in places like Des Moines and Ames, Edwards has been winning over people in tiny towns like Sac City (population: 2,189). That's important, the strategists say, because under Iowa's arcane caucus rules, a precinct where 25 people show up to vote gets the same number of delegates as a place that packs in 2,500. In other words, even if he loses to Obama and Clinton in the state's bigger cities, he can still win by wrapping up smaller, far-flung precincts that other candidates have ignored. "The bulk of our support is in small and medium counties," says Jennifer O'Malley, Edwards's Iowa state director. O'Malley says Edwards has visited all 99 counties in the state; the campaign has so far trained captains covering 90 percent of all 1,781 precincts.

Tonight I participated in a conference call with Edwards supporters across the state of Texas; Fred Baron, David Bonior, Chris Bell and others gave updates and asked for (and volunteered to) help. Perhaps the most revealing thing to me is that the campaign is so encouraged by the momentum building in the Hawkeye State that their foremost request was for volunteers to spend any available time in New Hampshire.

Edwards is going to win the Iowa caucuses. Mark it.

Reid backs down, pulls FISA bill

Thanks to everyone who budged the machinery of democracy today:

Harry Reid just announced on the floor that he intends to table debate on the FISA overhaul legislation until January.

This is an important development and will hopefully allow the opposition to telco amnesty to convince enough Senators that providing blanket immunity to these companies who broke the law really doesn't do much to keep us safe.

Earlier, our Liberal Lion noted:

The President has said that American lives will be sacrificed if Congress does not change FISA. But he has also said that he will veto any FISA bill that does not grant retro-active immunity. No immunity, no FISA bill. So if we take the President at his word, he's willing to let Americans die to protect the phone companies.

Update: the video of the above ...



And while their offices indicated they opposed the bill and supported Senator Dodd's filibuster, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, (and John McCain too, for that matter) were nowhere near the Senate chamber today. All of them stayed on the campaign trail -- the Democrats in Iowa.

Chris Dodd -- by his actions and his words -- deserves fresh consideration from those who remain undecided about whom to support for President.

Update: here's his message, recorded shortly after the end of the session ...