Thank you again, Senator Dodd

Mr. President, I've spoken repeatedly about the rule of law. The rule of law isn't some abstract idea. It's here with us. It's what makes this body run, and it has for more than two centuries. It means that we hear each other out. We do it in the open. And, while the minority gets its voice, gets its right to strenuously object, the majority ultimately rules. Standing for the rule of law anywhere means standing for it everywhere, in our courts and in the United States Senate as well. The circumstances are different, of course, but the heart of the matter is the same. Last evening, I believe, the Republican party forfeited its claim to good faith on this issue. They've left to stake their case on fear, unfortunately...."

So what's next on FISA?

(Senate Democrats), under the leadership of Senator Harry Reid and with the help of Senator Jay Rockefeller (a good friend of the administration earlier in the debate on this bill), refused to let the minority ram through its substitute on Thursday and are finally forcing the Republicans to find 60 votes to kill the debate, prevent the amendments from being considered, and just move on. This Monday at 4:30 EST is do-or-die time -- our first goal must be to urge a 'no' vote on cloture so that meaningful amendments can be considered. It could be the first time in recent history that the Democrats -- who claim to want to protect the Constitution -- stand up to the administration and say no. No more warrantless wiretapping of Americans, no more give-aways to the industries that fill politicians' coffers, no more hiding the unlawful acts of this administration.

If that means the so-called Protect America Act sunsets, so be it. As House Leader Hoyer and Senate Intel Chairman Rockefeller have noted, all current surveillance orders can be extended into 2009 even if the current law expires. The intel community won't be forced to end its current warrantless wiretapping and Congress will have the time to do, well, anything else besides pass this horrible Senate bill, which is really the worst option out there. If no legislation is enacted before the sunset, the law simply reverts to the surveillance statutes in place as of last July -- with the significant addition that plans authorized over the last six months may continue even if they have been authorized without appropriate judicial oversight.

As posted here previously, I make a point of calling Democratic Senators -- particularly in adjoining states like Louisiana and Arkansas in this case -- and kindly asking them to represent me, and the millions of other Texas Democrats who have no US Senate representation:

More than ever it is crucial that you call your senator and urge a no vote on cloture – especially if your senator is one of the twelve - Bayh, Carper, Inouye, Johnson, Landrieu, McCaskill, Mikulski, Nelson (FL), Nelson (NE), Pryor, Salazar - who voted with the administration on Thursday. All we need is to knock a handful of them off the administration's bandwagon and we'll have an opportunity to get this right.

Watson: Hello, MOTO (certainly not MoFo)

(State Sen. Kirk Watson of Austin was kind enough to write a guest blog for the Texas Progressive Alliance as we continue to push our TexRoots 2008 slate of candidates.)

A few months back a certain progressive blogger took note of a piece I had published. This writer responded with an entry that was mostly complementary -- I'd guess we agree about 90 percent of the time. But then, after hitting a point I thought was pretty inarguable, the writer called me a "MOTO."

Most of you who read Texas' great progressive blogs probably know what a "MOTO" is. I, on the other hand, had to turn to my 18-year-old son (and pop culture crutch) Preston, who steered me to something called urbandictionary.com. There, I finally learned the truth:

I am, it seems, a "Master Of The Obvious".

It was kind of a frustrating revelation, partly because it's true. But if I've learned anything at all in my year as a state senator, it's that what's so obvious to me (and to acronym-wielding bloggers) seems downright foreign to so many others -- particularly the Republican leadership in the Texas Capitol.

Here are just a few MOTO moments from the past few months:

•It's wrong for a governor to use a 39-percent mandate to rig state agencies in ways that benefit corporate contributors, privatize public roads, and ignore the real health and educational needs of this state.

•It's wrong for a lieutenant governor to wage a partisan campaign to ram through a voter screening bill that targets Hispanics and the elderly. It's worse to force a very ill senator to set up a sick bed outside the Senate chamber simply to block such a terrible, discriminatory proposal.

•It's wrong for a speaker of the House to stand before a body of democratically elected officials who gave him his office, and then declare he has absolute power to ignore them.

•It's wrong for Supreme Court justices to stretch campaign finance laws, or to ignore law and precedent in rulings that protect political contributors, or to take advantage of a politicized criminal justice process.

•And it's very wrong for a high court judge to slam shut the doors of justice as early as possible, especially when it means sending a man to his death.

All pretty obvious, right? Well, not to the people who've run this state for all these years. And that's where we all have work to do.

We are right. We are anxious to do great things for Texas, to restore opportunity, and to create reasons to hope for a better future.

But we can't just know that. We can't just talk to ourselves.

We can't assume it's obvious.

We must make it apparent to anyone who cares about this state and where it's headed, and we must remind them of the most obvious statement of all: Texans cannot trust the Republican leadership.

I'm talking about the political bosses, bullies, ideologues and figureheads that control the agenda, bury the opposition, and block any bill that runs counter to their dogma.

I'm talking about the folks who are more interested in taking irresponsible pledges than in solving Texas' challenges, who will deny the most verifiable fact if it doesn't conform to their ideology, and who will embrace every budget trick they can think of before they level with Texans about what people are worth to them.

I'm talking about the select group that's denied children health care at any cost, that's allowed our colleges and universities to become overcrowded, underfunded and inadequate, that's watched our highways deteriorate while forcing Texans to choose between crushing traffic and private toll roads, and that's denied and deferred environmental problems, leaving our children to fix them.

Here's what's most obvious: only the Democratic Party will bring about the positive changes that Texans need and demand.

That means we have to do all we can this year -- we must make it obvious -- that the people of Texas must challenge the so-called absolute power of the Republican leadership. Once we make MOTOs out of everyone, Texas will elect strong Democrats in 2008.

Dear Senator Corn-fed

I'm writing today to urge you in the strongest possible terms NOT to pass any wiretapping legislation that violates our rights as expressed in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, OR that gives blanket retroactive immunity to the telecom companies who helped the Bush Administration commit violations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

You swore an oath upon taking your seat in the U.S. Senate to preserve, protect and defend our Constitution. The Fourth Amendment guarantees our right to be free from searches of our persons, papers and effects without a warrant based upon probable cause. But the legislation from the Senate Intelligence Committee would allow "blanket warrants" for wiretapping -- blatantly contravening the Fourth Amendment's requirement for a warrant to "particularly describ[e] the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The rule of law is also at stake here. It's quite clear that some telecoms, such as AT&T, helped the Bush Administration repeatedly violate the law of the land at the time (FISA). But at least one company, Quest, quite properly refused to do so. To grant the lawbreakers immunity after the fact would undermine the concept of equal justice for all and codify a Nixonian attitude towards the law -- "If the President does it, it must be legal."

So I ask to you take a strong stand against ANY legislation that grants retroactive immunity OR does not preserve our rights to privacy as guaranteed in the Fourth Amendment.

I also respectfully ask that you reply to my message as soon as possible with your views on this topic.

Corndog has never once responded to any message sent to him in the past six years, so I am not holding my breath this time. But if he does, I'll post it here.

Clinton and Obama must join the fight against telecom immunity

A letter from my good friends* Glenn Greenwald and Jane Hamsher:

Dear Friend,

John Edwards should challenge his rivals Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to go back to Washington, DC and fight against retroactive immunity for the telecoms.

The Republicans are not going to let Harry Reid punt and extend the Protect America Act for another 18 months so it looks like the FISA bill is going to come back up again on Monday. Chris Dodd's objection to Unanimous Consent still stands, so they will pick up in the middle of the Motion to Proceed debate.

Without the help of the presidential candidates, we are doomed to lose this fight. And all their calls for change will ring hollow if they allow George Bush to railroad this bill through a supine Democratic-controlled Senate because of their absence.

You can email Senator Edwards directly at john@johnedwards.com.

Cheers,

Jane Hamsher & Glenn Greenwald

When last we were on the topic of retroactive immunity, Chris Dodd was still a presidential candidate. Clinton and Obama missed the vote because they were off campaigning.

I really don't want to see my future president failing to lead on an issue so critical again.

*They're not really my good friends, but maybe some day ...

MoDo, again

Mostly I have held the opinion that Maureen Dowd was somewhat obsessed, perhaps even a little depraved, regarding her unrelenting criticism of the Clintons. But here she is, simply and sadly, dead on target:

If Bill Clinton has to trash his legacy to protect his legacy, so be it. If he has to put a dagger through the heart of hope to give Hillary hope, so be it.

If he has to preside in this state as the former first black president stopping the would-be first black president, so be it.

The Clintons — or “the 2-headed monster,” as the The New York Post dubbed the tag team that clawed out wins in New Hampshire and Nevada — always go where they need to go, no matter the collateral damage. Even if the damage is to themselves and their party.

Bill’s transition from elder statesman, leader of his party and bipartisan ambassador to ward heeler and hatchet man has been seamless — and seamy.

This is believed to be the Clintons' strength: in boxing parlance, their counterpunch. Their steel jaw.

It appears to me as '90s style guttersniping. Slime your opponent before (you think) he can. Rovian politics without the Rove.

When he was asked yesterday if he would feel bad standing in the way of the first black president, he said no. “I’m not standing in his way,” he said. “I think Hillary would be a better president” who’s “ready to do the job on the first day.” He added: “No one has a right to be president, including Hillary. Keep in mind, in the last two primaries, we ran as an underdog.” He rewrote the facts, saying that “no one thought she could win” in New Hampshire, even though she originally had had a substantial lead.

He said of Obama: “I hope I get a chance to vote for him some day.” And that day, of course, would be after Hillary’s eight years; it’s her turn now because Bill owes her. “I think it would be just as much a change, and some people think more, to have the first woman president as to have the first African-American president,” he said.

Bad Bill had been roughing up Obama so much that Representative James Clyburn of South Carolina suggested that he might want to “chill.” On a conference call with reporters yesterday, the former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, a national co-chairman of the Obama campaign, tut-tutted that the “incredible distortions” of the political beast were “not keeping with the image of a former president.”

Jonathan Alter reported in Newsweek that Senator Edward Kennedy and Rahm Emanuel, the Illinois congressman and former Clinton aide, have heatedly told Bill “that he needs to change his tone and stop attacking Senator Barack Obama.”

There is the anecdotal evidence that portends doom in the general election: in the face of Democratic leaders, even elders asking -- perhaps demanding -- that he cool it, the former president keeps his foot on the gas. That defiance could ultimately result in a blowback that destroys not just his wife, but the party he purports to lead. It's still just fun-and-games to him, though:

At the Greenville event, Bill brought up Obama’s joking reference to him in the debate, about how Obama would have to see whether Bill was a good dancer before deciding whether he was the first black president.

Bill, naturally, turned it into a competition. “I would be willing to engage in a dancing competition with him, even though he’s much younger and thinner than I am,” he said. “If I’m going to get in one of these brother contests,” he added, “at least I should be entitled to an age allowance.”

He said, “I kind of like seeing Barack and Hillary fighting.”

“How great is this?” he said. “Neither of them has to be a little wind-up doll who’s supposed to behave in a certain way. They’re real people, flesh and blood people. They have differences.”

And if he has anything to say about it, and he will, they’ll be fighting till the last dog dies.

These are truly uncharted political waters we're entering now. It's just a shame -- rather nauseating, in fact -- that this sea is taking on the appearance of a septic tank.

They lied. No one could have predicted that.

I'll just bold the vital statistics:

A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism. White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said he could not comment on the study because he had not seen it.

The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.

"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."

Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.

Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only to Powell's 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida.

The center said the study was based on a database created with public statements over the two years beginning on Sept. 11, 2001, and information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches and interviews.

"The cumulative effect of these false statements — amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts — was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war," the study concluded.

"Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organizations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, 'independent' validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq," it said.

In January of 2002 I went into private practice. Earlier the previous fall, in the wake of September 11's tragic events, my co-workers and I had discussed the fact they America intended to go after Iraq as retribution. I thought at the time that was a positively ridiculous proposition, but as history kept unfolding it became clear to me that was exactly what my government intended to do: start an unprovoked war on a completely distinct, uninvolved third party based on a web of deception so thorough that even members of the so-called liberal media (Judith Miller, anyone?) were complicit.

In the discussion fora I was participating in at the time, I remember not only the dismay of trying to speak out against the massive , foolish rush to war and the intoxicated patriotic fervor everywhere I looked ("God Bless America", anyone?), but also the steadfast refusal to consider that the course we were on might be misguided. I remember being accused of treason many times simply for speaking out.

As more developments came to light, we learned -- eventually -- that the Bush administration took the word of an Iraqi ("Curveball") over the advice of a former United States ambassador, and then went out of their way to discredit him by revealing his wife to be a undercover CIA agent.

And then there were the (occasional) unintended consequences: the torture of Iraqis at Abu Ghraib, the detention without charge of suspected prisoners of war at Guantanamo Bay, the no-bid contracts of Halliburton, the loss of life of our brave soldiers who went to war without proper body armor or vehicular plating, the travesty of the poor treatment of our battle-wounded within the veterans' so-called health care system ...

What did I leave out?

Oh, yeah: the refusal of a Democratic Congressional majority elected to do something about it not doing anything about it.

These sad developments compelled many Americans to make the second-most ultimate sacrifice: max out their credit cards, then take out home equity loans to pay them off, then run them up again, all the while keeping their eyes peeled for any distraction from reality, such as American Idol or Dancing With the Stars. It forced mortgage lending companies to bend the rules in order to keep the stock market up and the rest of the economy humming, and it also forced the Bush Administration to cut the taxes for the wealthiest Americans so that they could prop up America's best restaurants and luxury auto dealers.

Everyone has to make sacrifices during a time of war, after all.

But geez, things are still kind of, you know, turning bad a little. So the Fed cuts the funds rate again so that the markets don't drop quite as much and Bush says he'll send us a check for 300 bucks and the surge is working, so hey, maybe we gon' be awright after all.

Ya think?

Blogging for a woman's right to choose today

Today, on the 35th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision upholding women's reproductive freedom, Roe v. Wade has never been more imperiled. MissLaura points to the ages of Justices Stevens (87), Ginsberg (74), Breyer, (69), Souter (68), Alito (57), and Roberts (52) as evidence that the coming presidential election is likely to matter significantly to the fate of Roe, and women.

Choose wisely.

Goodnight, Grampa Fred

It just won't be quite as much fun without ya.

Even Candy Crowley thinks Edwards won

Do you have any idea how difficult it was for those words to pass the Butter Queen's lips? Ohhh, those lips:

As for the press corps, they really weren't that bad. I don't think I was ignored any more than most other small-time reporters, most of whom were pretty nice people who just had lousy jobs. But the cool kids, the people working for the big papers and TV stations who really loved hobnobbing with all the pols on the plane — they were a pretty disgusting group in some ways. I think the one image that will stick with me is Candy Crowley (CNN) jamming fistfuls of complimentary chocolate chip cookies into her mouth in a bus in Houston (the Kerry campaign had given us all free cookies wrapped in American-flag-patterned bandanas) and talking about Kucinich. She's got this huge waterfall of crumbs coming out of her mouth and she's talking about how ugly Kucinich is. That to me summed up the whole campaign press crew, right there...

The words of Matt Taibbi, late of Rolling Stone. You may have seen him on Bill Maher last Saturday evening.

The worst on display

Was anyone else embarrassed by the conduct of the two front-runners for the Democratic nomination in last night's debate?

On Martin Luther King Day, of all days, for the mud to be slung with such vigor by our candidates. Disgusting. The only thing missing was them calling each other "b*tch" and "n*gg*r".

If you saw it, you know what I'm talking about. If you didn't, then consider yourself fortunate.

In a contest which has already featured a former president doing the dirty political work for his wife (who seems more than capable of doing it herself), we also got to see a visibly incensed Barack Obama call both of them liars. Lovely. And to observe the facial expressions and body language of Mrs. Clinton and Obama -- too close for comfort, CNN, in a warning to other networks about pore-revealing closeup shots in future debates -- it is plainly and painfully obvious that these two do not like each other. A lot.

This is a revoltin' development. And a best-case scenario for a plenty *ucked-up bunch of Republicans to capitalize on.

That vivid demonstration of extraordinarily unprofessional conduct in last night's debate simply does not inspire independent voters to turn out at the polls and vote for Democratic candidates for any office. It doesn't even inspire Democratic voters to do so, for Pete's sake.

In case you hadn't noticed, we Democrats tend to fight amongst ourselves. And we tend to call each other names when we do. Sometimes the bitterness from a tough campaign lingers afterward, and dampens our enthusiasm for the general election fray and the real enemy. This results in a presidential nominee failing to get enough grassroots motivation -- blockwalking, phone calling, even things as nebulous as water cooler conversation and putting a bumper sticker on one's car -- to actually win an election they shouldn't lose. This phenomenon already occurred in 2000 and 2004 to some degree (yes, there were indeed other, more significant factors like hanging chads and the SCOTUS in 2000 and malfunctioning voting machines in Ohio in 2004. I don't intend to minimize those facts in any way. But we Democratics aren't like the Republics; we don't fall in lockstep behind our nominee no matter who it is. We think. But I digress).

I was already plenty disillusioned about the prospect of supporting one of these two people, and now ... well, you tell me.

What did either Clinton or Obama say or do to earn your support last night?

I'll let Martin Luther King III, in his letter to John Edwards, have the last word for me:

So, I urge you: keep going. Ignore the pundits, who think this is a horserace, not a fight for justice. My dad was a fighter. As a friend and a believer in my father's words that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, I say to you: keep going. Keep fighting. My father would be proud.

Update: Rhymes agrees.

Remembering MLK today

On some positions a coward has asked the question: is it safe? Expediency asks the question, is it politic? Vanity asks the question, is it popular? But conscience asks the question: is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must take it because conscience tells him it is right.

-- Martin Luther King Jr., November 1967

More WTF: Huck and Chuck in Navasota

Huckabee's Sunday fundraiser and rally at the Lone Wolf Ranch of martial arts action star Chuck Norris was the first major presidential event for either party in the state since Jan. 1.

Unintentional humor was in blessed abundance:

Freshly bruised from a second-place finish in the South Carolina Republican primary, presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee told a gathering of Texas financial supporters Sunday that the GOP nomination may come down to the Lone Star State on March 4.

"By the time we get through Feb. 5, there still will not be a decisive winner," said Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas. "I'm having to reach down deep and swallow my Arkansas pride, and it is taking everything in me to be able to say this, but, folks, Texas may just have to save this Arkansas boy and put us over the top in March of this year."

Count on it, Huckster. The Lord's flock of sheep are going all in for ya. Texas, hold him; those weekly poker game winnings -- not to mention the commissions on Total Gym sales -- are likely to save God's Chosen Republican yet.

More from other campaigns about the potential for Texas to matter as it regards picking a president:

Houston lawyer Patrick Oxford, a national co-chairman for Republican Rudy Giuliani, said the mixed results of the early primaries have helped Giuliani because the campaign always downplayed the early contests to focus on the Jan. 29 Florida winner-take-all primary and the Feb. 5 primaries, which have 1,462 delegates at stake.

"I don't think it is any secret that chaos is our friend," Oxford said. ...

Oxford said Giuliani can organize Texas quickly by tapping into the campaigns of his top Texas political supporters: Gov. Rick Perry, Comptroller Susan Combs and Railroad Commission Chairman Michael Williams.

"You have to take advantage of their organization quickly to have a ground game," Oxford said. "Texas is a big state. Any type of media campaign even by then probably will be too expensive for everybody."

It almost sounds like he's wishing another plane would fly into a building, doesn't it? More visionary insight: "Texas is a big state". I think I've heard that one.

And this from the bright side:

"Clearly, the Clinton campaign has an advantage in creating an infrastructure overnight," said state Rep. Mark Strama, D-Austin, an Obama supporter. "They've done this before and they've got a network of past supporters."

Strama said dedicated volunteers with Texans for Obama have been working since 2006. He said many of them have worked on political campaigns in the past.

Ian Davis, one of the organizers, said part of the effort has been dedicated to having 20 percent of all students on college campuses pledged to Obama by election day. He said the San Antonio operation has 400 volunteers, some of whom went to Iowa to campaign.

But wait ... the evil Dr. No is going to have a say in the Texas outcome, yes?

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Lake Jackson, also has a small army of volunteers. Hundreds tried to vote in a state Republican straw poll last summer, but were turned away because they had not previously voted in a GOP primary.

They obviously forgot to bring their Voter ID cards. Recall that this was the Texas GOP primary that yesterday's quitter, Duncan Hunter, won. More from Oxford, who's just a laugh a minute, but first a word from another disciple of Huck:

Kelly Shackelford of the Liberty Legal Institute said having Perry's endorsement will not help Giuliani because Huckabee will have the support of social conservatives who oppose abortion and support home schooling.

Shackelford said that even if Perry were to give his political supporter lists to Giuliani, "if you get them out to vote they will just vote for Huckabee." He added the "establishment doesn't have campaign structure. Let's see if they can crush one grass-roots guy."

Social conservatives make up an estimated 35 percent to 40 percent of the Texas Republican primary vote. And they have an extensive e-mail network through church leaders and conservative organizations.

Oxford said he believes that enthusiasm will dampen after Feb. 5 if Republican voters see Giuliani as the candidate who can defeat the Democratic nominee in the November general election.

"I wouldn't be dismissive at all of the social conservative network, but we'll see if they will be kamikazes for Huckabee," Oxford said. "I don't know that they will be."

Praise God, it looks like Mike is going to make it to heaven (aka the Republican National Convention) and anoint the Saviour.

It might even be he who wears the crown.

Update: I didn't even mention that Chuck Norris, 67, thinks John McCain, 72, is too old to be president, so check Esoterically.net for that. And Huckabee really shouldn't make comments about other people's hair color, especially since McCain obviously isn't using any.

The Weekly Wrangle

Time for another weekly roundup of Texas Progressive Alliance blog posts. This week's collection is brought to you by Steve at WhosPlayin, while Vince recovers from his wild weekend covering the AFL-CIO Convention.

WhosPlayin takes a look at a spoof website that has turned a Denton County commissioner's race ugly.

John Coby cautions Houston City Council about Houstonians for Responsible Growth.

BossKitty at Bluebloggin points out how Dick Cheney shows his loyalty toward the people who are supposed to take a bullet for him in Secret Service Takes The Fall - Cheney Not To Be Inconvenienced.

A report of the SDEC meeting posted by PDiddie at Brains and Eggs drew a response from several quarters.

McBlogger looks at Rep. Dawnna Dukes' conflict of interest in helping the film industry and wonders if she's truly non-committal in the Speaker's race.

On The Texas Blue, contributing writer David Gurney takes a look at the short-lived influence of the baby boomer era on politics in The Downhill Run.

Off the Kuff says it's time for C.O. Bradford to start speaking out about the various messes Chuck Rosenthal has created at the Harris County DA's office.

The Texas Cloverleaf informs everyone that the TTC Townhall 2.0 hearings have begun. If you care where TTC-69 is going, you best attend for your voice to be heard.

WCNews at Eye On Williamson points out that Democrat Diana Maldonado Out-Raises All Candidates In HD-52 and shows the problem with one-party government in ACLU Shames WCCC - Free Speech Under Attack.

Stace at Dos Centavos analyzes the Latino vote for Hillary in Nevada.

Gary at Easter Lemming Liberal News still can't believe what has happened to what was once Houston's premiere radio news source. The new Republican Propaganda Radio Network had Rush Limbaugh calling a spade a spade and shows expertise with using hoes. Gary provides alternatives for your radio listening and a contact link to KTRH 740 AM.

CouldBeTrue from South Texas Chisme answers the question 'What does 'immigration' mean as an issue?'

Suzanne Pleshette, 1937-2008

She was responsible for IMHO one of television's most classic moments:

Although Newhart got a new TV wife, played by Mary Frann, for his 1982-90 Newhart, Pleshette had the last laugh -- making a memorable surprise guest appearance as Newhart's previous TV wife at the end of the series' final episode.

Dick Loudon, the Vermont innkeeper Newhart played on Newhart, is knocked out by a stray golf ball. Then the show cuts to a darkened bedroom as he wakes up and turns on the light to reveal Chicago psychologist Bob Hartley's bedroom from The Bob Newhart Show.

The Vermont-set Newhart and its colorful characters, it turns out, had only been a dream, and Pleshette's Emily tells Bob he should watch what he eats before going to bed.

In a 1990 interview with CBS This Morning, Pleshette recalled that when the Newhart studio audience saw the familiar bedroom set from the old series, she heard a shocked intake of breath.

"And then they heard this mumble under the covers, and nobody does my octave, you know," she recalled. "And I think they suspected it might be me, but when that dark hair came up from under the covers, they stood and screamed."

One of my favorite bass-tenor women.

Duncan Hines quits

Oh wait, that's not his name.

So is Romney running front now or is it McCain?

Is Dr. No's second-place finish meaningful or not?

Paul took several swipes at former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who got fewer votes than Paul in Nevada and was trailing Paul in returns being tabulated Saturday night in South Carolina. He told the audience about a confrontation with Giuliani during this month's debate in South Carolina. He said Giuliani "cut me down."

"Tonight, if this is the final tally on that confrontation, we got three times as much vote as the mayor got," he said, referring to Nevada.

So when does 9ui11ani quit? Right after he doesn't win Florida? And did Grampa Fred quit last night or not? I couldn't really tell, either. And are you thanking your God this morning that the Republicans won't be nominating a guy who fried squirrel in a popcorn popper in his dorm room when he was in college?

I mean ... who knew Gomer Huckabee even went to college?

Every time I get frustrated about what's going on with the Democrats, all I have to do is look over at the Republicans, and I forget all my worries.

Sunday Funnies (brunch edition)

Thanks to my buddy Bartcop for many of this post's contributions. He's a Hillary lover but I can't hate him for it.

Does a gender card beat a race card?

That's why I put the 'toon with that caption on top of the last post, because it really signifies the coming maelstrom for Democrats at the national level.

So let's revisit that premise Booman suggested here last night. Yeah, that one: the one that suggests that Edwards' support for the most part goes to Clinton because she isn't black.

Maybe it's accurate, maybe it's not. If it is, I have to say that I thought I was in a political party that was better than that. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

And then again, maybe I am, and maybe I ain't.

That supporting a candidate for president isn't about his fight for the middle class and against the entrenched corporate interests -- that it's not progressive policy or even political viability but for reasons of bigotry -- gives me considerable pause. I already have enough disagreements with Democrats acting like Republicans; if it becomes any more obvious that they're a bunch of racist pigs on top of that, then I just have one question left to ask:

How did I get in here? And how do I get out? And: WTF?

WTF am I doing in a party like that; a party where former Congressmen Nick Lampson and Ciro Rodriguez move in to another district and promptly sell themselves completely out to the Republicans for a measly two years in Congress (because, believe me, that is all they're gonna get)? A party that not only refuses to bring impeachment proceedings against Dick Cheney, but considers those of us who do 'divisive'? A party that wants to give the telephone companies blanket immunity from eavesdropping on my phone calls and e-mail?

WTF am I doing in a party that denies Dennis Kucinich a place on the ballot because he won't swear a loyalty oath? A party that only allows votes for "approved" write-in candidates to count?

Have we gone backwards in time when I wasn't looking? Is this Germany in the late 1930's? (Don't even get me started about the ICE wagons rounding people up and drugging them because they don't have the proper papers. There's plenty of Democrats that agree with the xenophobes and nativists in the Republican party on that one.)

WTF am I doing in a party where a Texas House Democrat (sic) takes thousands of dollars from Swift Boat Bob Perry and fully supports Tom Craddick for speaker, and yet gets the support of so-called progressives? What kind of pretzel have we twisted our principals to look like this time? And WHY TF are two choices for the state house in a 90% Democratic district Completely Corrupt, who lost two years ago -- but has run around the district telling people he's still the rep -- and Completely Crazy?

WTF am I doing in a party with a PAC that tells potential candidates which offices to run for, alternately dangles hundreds of thousands of dollars in front of them and threatens to remove that and all their other sources of funding because they don't toe the line?

Third Thursday, named simply after the day of the month they meet, decided to focus on state House races in Harris County instead.

"We didn't feel like we were able to affect the presidential races and the agenda," said lawyer Dave Matthiesen. "We wanted to get involved in something where we could make a difference."

The group includes former Pennzoil CEO Jim Postl; Bob Cavnar, CEO of Milagro Exploration; former Metro Chairman Arthur Schechter; and Houston Center for Contemporary Craft co-founder Sara Morgan.

These are members of the Democratic Party? The same one I'm in?

No, but they are Democrats.

WTF am doing in here with this bunch of people? I can give my time and money to a lot more things that will give me a lot greater satisfaction than this.

Oh yeah, this post was supposed to be about race and gender, not just race and money and corruption. It's almost time once again to revisit those tired bromides about how tested and ready Mrs. Clinton will be for the coming Republican flames. What about the questions of her fitness for the presidency from her own side? Like the ones I'll be leveling, for example?

What if the reason she loses isn't because she energizes the Republicans but that she demoralizes too many of the real Democrats? Is that going to be our fault, too?

Lots has been written about the fracturing coalitions within the GOP, but if the Democrats -- be it Hillary or Barack as the nominee -- lose the White House it will be of their own doing. Even my little brother the Republican thinks "the Democrats have a lay-down hand, but they keep shootin' themselves in the head".

A few too many mixed Western metaphors , but the point is taken.

Sunday Funnies (daybreak edition)

*sigh*

This was Booman, yesterday afternoon:

Late polling out of Nevada shows an Edwards collapse that is benefiting Clinton. This is obviously the worst possible news for both Obama and Edwards. It looks like the Clintons are using Obama's anti-gambling history against him, which is just one more reason for me to want to puke.

You can learn some about how the caucuses are going to work and lay of the land here. I am not going to predict the outcome of tommorow's contest but I will say that Obama cannot afford to lose and Edwards cannot afford a collapse below the 15% mark. Both of those outcomes are now indicated in the polls. So, my fingers are crossed and I am not at all happy.

Here are the results just now:

Clinton 51
Obama 45
Edwards 4

And back to Booman ...

Clinton lost almost every county in Nevada but she won in Clark County by a big margin and that is where most of the people live. She is going to win the caucuses with somewhere around 49%-52% of the vote. Edwards will finish with an astonishingly low 4% of the vote. Both outcomes are deadly to the prospects for stopping a Clinton nomination. I think Obama's victory in South Carolina is now at risk, particularly if Edwards' supporters start shifting to the other white candidate.

I'm 'this' close to calling the nomination as over. But dynamics can still change in a hurry and perhaps an Obama comeback in South Carolina can still propel him to victories on Feb. 5th.

There is still no official word on how much money we raised for the Edwards campaign yesterday. Obviously it wasn't $7 million.

*heavy sigh*

I'm going to dinner in Kemah. I'll probably have some thoughts on South Carolina and the prospects going forward tomorrow, in between the Sunday Funnies.

Bobby Fischer 1943- 2008

He inspired me, as he did thousands of other kids, with his legendary chess skills, and his world championship win over Boris Spassky at one of the many depths of the Cold War:

Mr. Fischer was the most powerful American player in history, and the most enigmatic. After scaling the heights of fame, he all but dropped out of chess, losing money and friends and living under self-imposed exile in Budapest, Japan, possibly in the Philippines and Switzerland, and finally in Iceland, moving there in 2005 and becoming a citizen.

More on Fischer vs. Spassky in 1972, and its rematch twenty years later:

In 1992, he came out of a long seclusion for a $5 million rematch against his old nemesis, the Russian-born grandmaster Boris Spassky. The match, in Yugoslavia, commemorated the 20th anniversary of the two men’s monumental meeting in Reykjavik and Mr. Fischer’s most glorious triumph.

Mr. Fischer won the rematch handily, but it was a sad reprise of their face-off in the summer of 1972.

In that earlier encounter, Mr. Fischer wrested the world championship from the elegant Mr. Spassky to become the first and, as yet, only American to win the title, one that Soviet-born players had held for more than four decades. It was the cold war fought with chess pieces in an out-of-the-way place.

Mr. Fischer won with such brilliance and dramatic flair that he became an unassailable representative of greatness in the world of competitive games, much as Babe Ruth had been and Michael Jordan would become.

“It was Bobby Fischer who had, single-handedly, made the world recognize that chess on its highest level was as competitive as football, as thrilling as a duel to the death, as aesthetically satisfying as a fine work of art, as intellectually demanding as any form of human activity,” Harold C. Schonberg, who reported on the Reykjavik match for The New York Times, wrote in his 1973 book “Grandmasters of Chess.”

He was ahead of his time in other ways as well ...

Fischer renounced his U.S. citizenship and spent nine months in custody before the dispute was resolved when Iceland — a chess-mad nation of 300,000 — granted him citizenship.

"They talk about the 'axis of evil,'" Fischer said when he arrived in Iceland. "What about the allies of evil ... the United States, England, Japan, Australia? These are the evildoers."

Like his other extravagances, he took it a little too far ...

He praised the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, saying, "I want to see the U.S. wiped out," and described Jews as "thieving, lying bastards." Fischer's mother was Jewish.

Checkmate, Bobby. You'll be missed by this very average chess player.

Today's the Seven Million Dollar Day

You know what to do.

"An offense to justice"

Republican Texas Supreme Court justice gets indicted for evidence tampering in an arson investigation (while Mrs. TSC judge catches the actual arson charge). Republican DA refuses to indict. Assistant foreman of the grand jury returning the indictments -- also a Republican -- goes public with the charge of political fixing.

Sorry, we've run out of popcorn; will chips and salsa be OK?

"Rosenthal resisted these indictments with a vigor I have never seen or heard before. The DAs office called my office last week and said we should not meet, the case was not viable and we should not indict. Obviously, that came from the top."

He continued, "Rosenthal went to the press (at the end of October) ... where he tried to sweep it under the rug. This really pisses me off. I am offended at his actions."

Dorrell said, "Our term ended on November 2 but our investigation of this issue had not been completed. We were held over for three months. This was the only case on our docket. Twelve citizens have put in countless hours on this issue. It is very irritating for someone who was not in the room with us decide not to prosecute.

"If this was a truck driver from Pasadena, he would have already been tried and convicted. Instead, there was a concerted effort by his office to protect this sitting elected Republican from the normal process of justice ."

"It is an offense to justice", Dorrell said.

Everybody caught the Joe Horn reference, right? Now Charlie:

Remember, Rosenthal had no problems taking C.O. Bradford (the Democratic nominee for DA this cycle) to court on flimsy evidence, and while he went out of his way to not prosecute onetime local GOP kingpin Steven Hotze on a drunk driving charge. He has an established history of questionable judgment, and it would seem that it's no better today.

Please note that I am not claiming that Justice Medina is guilty of anything. He very much gets and deserves the presumption of innocence that we all enjoy. My layman's view of the news stories, which I had not followed very closely before now, is that the state's case would be very circumstantial. It's quite possible that despite Mr. Dorrell's protests, Rosenthal is making the correct call to not pursue these charges. If Rosenthal's judgment were remotely trustworthy, there wouldn't be that much to say about this story. But his judgment is anything but trustworthy, and so I and I'm sure many other people are deeply suspicious of Rosenthal's actions here. That's corrosive to the justice system in general, and very unfair to the Medinas, who is owed a real chance to clear his name.

I don't know what's going to happen. Even with Rosenthal's issues, it would be a bad precedent for public opinion to put pressure on a DA to prosecute someone when that DA thinks the evidence is lacking. All that I can really conclude is that Rosenthal is well past his expiration date, and would be doing everybody a huge favor if he'd just get the hell out. That's the kind of public opinion pressure I can get behind.

Kuffner's being even-handed, but note for the record that there might be another axe to grind: that GJ asst. foreman is a very soft Republican, having resigned as a precinct chair to vote for Chris Bell in 2006.

Why he still remains a Republican after all the offense he has taken at their hands, I cannot fathom.

One last thing that goes back to the original complaint of evidence tampering against a sitting Supreme Court judge: the house in Spring -- the one that burned, the one Medina's wife is accused of torching -- wasn't insured, and Medina didn't know it.

Got that, all you homeowners out there?

I presume this would be evidence supporting Justice Medina's presumption of innocence. /sarcasm

Update: Here's this morning's update from the Chron. And Lisa Falkenberg adds:

A couple of weeks ago, when (grand jury foreman Robert) Ryan and Dorrell were trying to set up a date for the grand jury to meet again, the two jurors said (prosecutor Vic) Wisner tried to talk them out of it.

"He seemed very upset," Dorrell told me. "He said, 'Why are you guys meeting? This isn't a viable case.' "

Then Thursday, when Ryan told Wisner what indictments he wanted prepared, Ryan said the prosecutor refused: "He said, 'I will not do it.' And I said, 'Well, get your boss in here.' And he said, 'He knows all about it.' And he slammed the door and left. He came back later and said, 'All right, I'll prepare the indictments.' "

If the indictments are dismissed, Ryan said, grand jurors may try to re-indict. It's unfortunate when a panel must go to such lengths to carry out justice.

It's worse if the district attorney has gone to such lengths to obstruct it.

Yes, we're related

Harvey Kronberg's Quorum Report:

GRAND JURY ASSISTANT FOREMAN ACCUSES ROSENTHAL OF COVERUP

"If this was a truck driver from Pasadena, he would already have been tried and convicted," said Dorrell

Jeffrey Dorrell served as the assistant foreman of the Harris County Grand Jury that indicted Texas Supreme Court Justice David Medina and his wife earlier today.

In a just-completed interview with Quorum Report, a furious Dorrell accused District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal of a political cover-up for refusing to pursue the just-returned indictments.

Hey, I'm just as in the dark as you are. Until the story hits the funny papers, you'll just have to buy it from Harvey.

The al-Qaeda wing of the GOP

What do you suppose the Right-Wing Noise machine would be blasting today if Mark Siljander happened to be a Democrat?

A former congressman and delegate to the United Nations was indicted Wednesday on charges of working for an alleged terrorist fundraising ring that sent more than $130,000 to an al-Qaida supporter who has threatened U.S. and international troops in Afghanistan.

Mark Deli Siljander, a Michigan Republican when he was in the House, was charged with money laundering, conspiracy and obstructing justice for allegedly lying about being hired to lobby senators on behalf of an Islamic charity that authorities said was secretly sending funds to terrorists.

The 42-count indictment, unsealed in U.S. District Court in Kansas City, Mo., accuses the Islamic American Relief Agency of paying Siljander $50,000 for the lobbying _ money that turned out to be stolen from the U.S. Agency for International Development.

The charges paint "a troubling picture of an American charity organization that engaged in transactions for the benefit of terrorists and conspired with a former United States congressman to convert stolen federal funds into payments for his advocacy," Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Wainstein said.

Siljander, who served in the House from 1981-1987, was appointed by President Reagan to serve as a U.S. delegate to the United Nations for one year in 1987.

Siljander was one of the very first conservo-freaks elected to Congress, preceding the post-Reagan wave of ultra-right-wing extremists, led by LeRoy Gingrich, that took control of the House in 1994. The same brand of extremism that is so common today it's almost mainstream.

Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Tom DeLay? All Johnny-Come-Latelies compared to Siljander. No less domestic terrorists, however.

More about this traitor:

Once in Congress, he became one of the most radical wingers, someone who in today's Republican caucus would fit in. For instance, in1984 he unsuccessfully tried to amend a civil rights bill "to define the term ''person'' under the bill to include ''unborn children from the moment of conception.'" But back then, in the early days of the radical religious right's takeover of the GOP, he attracted a lot of attention, too much for some, so in 1986 plutocrat Fred Upton defeated him in a Republican primary, helped by the crazy news that Siljander had issued a tape recording to fundies asking them to "break the back of Satan" by fasting and praying for his victory.

Their prayers weren't answered. He lost, but Reagan cushioned his landing by appointing him a position at the United Nations.

And apparently al-Qaeda in America supports Duncan Hunter. Whooda thunk?

"Incidentally, I met Duncan Hunter in the Members Dining Room in the House about a year ago. I was having lunch with Rep. Hunter's old friend and former Michigan congressman Mark Siljander, and the three of us stood there in the middle of the dining room, along with two of Duncan's San Diego constitutents (one active military and one disabled in Iraq and recently relieved from active duty) and we all held hands and prayed together while other diners gave us curious glances. At that moment I knew that Duncan Hunter was the right man for the White House, and I doubt if he'd seriously considered running for president at that point. A man with the courage of his convictions; what a great asset for a leader."

I know I was moved by this story and reassured that Duncan Hunter is the right man for the Presidency! If we pull together we can help make this great man our next president!

Back to DHinMI for the executive summary:

Let's review. Mark Siljander was one of the original creations of the fundamentalist right wing. Had he won his seat from a less moderate area than Southwest Michigan, he might still be in Congress. Hell, he'd probably be in leadership. So he was shunted aside for a while, but he continued to move in the interconnected world of fundamentalist religion, rightwing politics, and lobbying and financial malfeasance.

In short, Mark Siljander is a archetypal radical rightwing politician. They espouse patriotism and fundamental values, but really, they're just ignorant, intolerant, greedy and don't care about America.

Any questions?

NV voters/debate watchers pick Edwards

Frank Luntz is the wildly gesticulating Republican pollster in this video snapshot:



You can purchase Edwards bumper stickers, signs, shirts and more at the website (but wait until this Friday, when it counts as part of the $7 million drive).

Congratulations Mittens!

You couldn't have done it without us.

Now your Democratic constituents expect you to speak out against Mike Huckaboob's ridiculous assertion that we change the Constitution into the Bible.

John Edwards, Nevada, and $7 million this Friday

First, it's a three-way tie in Nevada:

A new poll by the Reno Gazette-Journal shows a neck-and-neck three-way race among Democrats for Saturday's (January 19) caucus.


Barack Obama: 32 percent
Hillary Clinton: 30 percent
John Edwards: 27 percent

The poll was conducted Jan. 11 to Jan. 13 , with samples of 500 likely Democratic caucus-goers statewide by Maryland-based Research 2000. The margin of error is 4.5 percent.

A win in Nevada would be part of the Edwards re-emergence (I'd like to have been able to use "surge", but you know why I can't). The action plan is to break Ron Paul's online fund-raising record this Friday, the day before Nevada votes:

What I want to know is this: If Paul can do it, why can't Edwards? Edwards has far more support than Paul and he ought to be able to mobilize his supporters to attempt to set a new fund raising record. I don't know if Edwards has anything like this in mind but there is no reason his supporters can't embark on this on their own.

Care to help out?

I see we've touched a nerve

My SDEC account apparently upset one of my blog hermanos:

The blog coverage from the January State Democratic Executive Committee (SDEC) meeting this past weekend is weak. We have only heard from David Van Os and Open Source Dem about their disappointment over the failure of John Courage’s proposal to place language on the March primary ballot statewide, blaming the “First Spear Centurion” for inaction on a resolution that was introduced into the wrong committee. Courage’s proposed referendum is a great idea, and it is a terrible disappointment that the motion was brought to the wrong committee.

First of all thanks for the linky love, dembones. That might be a first (excepting our mutual Roundups and Wrangles).

But to his objection: it's always useful to understand why someone cries when the status quo is challenged. I don't know if he has a dog in this hunt or whether -- in the admonishment "quit bitching and get to work" -- he's only interested in playing schoolmarm. But it's obvious in his archives that paying attention to what the SDEC is up to isn't high on the posting priority.

Which is certainly fine with me; they've done excellent research on the T Don Hutto scandal and the toll road concerns and have been the leader in Williamson County reporting for quite some time.

But if he didn't like that last one, he sure isn't going to like this one, either:

This time the Chairman -- a combination of Caligula's Horse and Ceasar's Wife -- "referred" the motion to the Monsignor Ken MOLBERG legalism committee. This is one of two committees, the other is "Rulesmanship", where anything progressive or simply innovative goes to die. It got tabled there because Monsignor MOLBERG made it clear enough that "the Crown" (who knows who that is actually, certainly it is not the elected State Chairman, a spokesmodel, not a principal) did not want it on the ballot.

But then at the end every one of the Palace Guard on that committee did not just table it, they refused even a minority report. Actually, you cannot be on the so-called Nominations/Legal Committee without being a member of the Palace Guard. It is the party's main organ of self-perpetuation. In fact Monsignor MOLBERG gave John Courage a lot of time to make either a substantive or procedural case. John, a school teacher, was high on substance but zero on process.

Monsignor MOLBERG specializes in long drawn-out tedium. Not torture actually, but with the same result.

(When John brought his motion up again to the full SDEC it was in his usual well-intended but pitifully illiterate and narcissistic parliamentary style. Here's a clue, John: it is not just or even mostly about you or Zada.)

Then it got really funny, because the Chairman did not really know what to do either, then mumbled something about "out of order" and fled the podium, relying on a Palace Guard scrum, phalanx of pseudo-parliamentarians, and more of the mumbo-jumbo squad to cover his ass and come up with a bizarre motion to "sustain the chair".

That's the Tom Craddick analogy, for anyone who's been paying close attention. Continuing:

As usual, the actual Vice Chair (a minority, not a lawyer) did not vice chair. The elected chair, bypassing her, threw the hot potato to House Slave, Dennis Speight.

This is the Democratic Party, folks: our poor, pitiful minorities are pandered to relentlessly and used as decoration "inclusively". But the party is actually run by white male lawyers and really smart, but kinda mean, old women -- legal secretaries or what the Pentagon calls "gray ladies".

Finally the coup de grace was delivered in a moment truly reminiscent of the Craddick House: the Vestal Virgin of Rules marched in and delivered a "ruling" in support of the Chair, whatever it was he did exactly. Actually in the Texas House, some member of the SDEC, as surrogate for the chair, would have read the ruling/opinion of the parliamentarian. Parliamentary law is about self-government, not clerical intimidation and usurpation.

Let's wrap it up by coming 'round to echo dembones' point about party finance:

Finally there is the matter of party/campaign finance. This party has no actual party finance. It is "barefoot and pregnant" -- funded, in part, by the GOP Secretary of State in return for being subservient and fawning, especially in dealings with Hart InterCivic.

And it is funded by corporations, unions, PACs, and the DNC on conditions that it hire certain people, set aside seats on the SDEC and DNC for certain individuals, procure this or that for particular vendors, match corporate funds with campaign contributions, and apply the campaign contributions, or not, to races and consultants the corporate interests and PACs dictate.

Sorry, we do not need a "New Jesus" or even a new state chair.

We need an entire SDEC with a disciplined and proficient majority of Democrats who can build "a real party", not a ladies auxiliary for an Austin political establishment that is and has been washed up, utterly unequal to the challenges we face or opportunities we have.

Well, maybe we'll just have to settle for a new Chair.

We endorse

From the TPA press release yesterday:

Rick Noriega, United States Senate. On March 4, Texas Democrats have a clear choice for their nominee for U.S. Senate: Rick Noriega. Noriega has the experience necessary to defeat Bush lapdog John Cornyn in the fall. Faced with three token primary opponents, only one of whom is running what could be considered a legitimate campaign. Noriega is the clear choice not because he is right on important issues such as the war and CHIP, but because he is a true progressive with a proven record of accomplishment for the people of Texas.

Joe Jaworski, State Senate, District 11. Joe Jaworski (D-Galveston), a former Galveston City councilman, has taken a very strong stance on environmental issues, especially important in SD-11 and statewide. Jaworski faces token primary opposition and will likely face Sen. Mike Jackson (R-LaPorte) in the 2008 general election. Jackson has one of the worst environmental records of any legislator in the entire Texas Legislature and has failed for several sessions to make any meaningful legislative headway on issues important to his constituents.

Rep. Garnet Coleman, Texas House, District 147. Coleman (D-Houston) is, of course, one of the leading progressives in the Texas House, and has been at the forefront of important issues including the Children’s Health Insurance Program, women's reproductive freedom, and gay rights. A member of the House leadership, re-electing Coleman is key to ensuring that the 81st session of the Texas Legislature has a strong liberal voice. Coleman faces a marginal primary opponent whose ballot status has been denied.

Rep. Jessica Farrar, Texas House, District 148. Farrar (D-Houston) is another strong progressive voice in the Capitol. She was a leader in the 80th Legislature on issues including the HPV vaccine, stem cell research, and against Rick Perry’s arrogant Homeland Security power-grab. Farrar is one of a handful of Democrats who voted against Speaker Tom Craddick in 2005 and as a result was relegated to the Agriculture Committee (an insult for a veteran legislator in an urban district). She faces in the primary a former staffer from her office who is believed to be supported by anti-progressive forces in Austin. Farrar is one of our progressive stars and Texans across the state need her back in 2009.

Rep. Paul Moreno, Texas House, District 77. Moreno (D-El Paso) is the dean of the House and one its strongest advocates on civil rights issues. A seasoned veteran of many progressive struggles, Moreno faces an unknown opponent with no experience in government. Moreno deserves re-election, and Texas needs his continued leadership on civil rights and Democratic issues in the Texas Legislature.

Armando Walle, Texas House, District 140. Walle is seeking to defeat Rep. Kevin Bailey (D-Houston) in the Democratic primary, who has been ineffective for his district on progressive issues. Unseating him is a necessary step toward picking a new Speaker. Walle has worked for Congressional members Sheila Jackson Lee and Gene Green, and, we believe, will be a better voice for HD-140 than Bailey.

Brian Thompson, Texas House, District 46. Thompson also squares off in the primary against Rep. Dawnna Dukes (D-Austin), who has cast a number of votes against the interest of her constituents. A changing of the guard here is yet another step toward electing a new Speaker in 2009. Thompson, an attorney, has strong ties to the community and will be a much needed progressive voice in this Austin district.

To view the 2008 TexRoots slate, or to make an online contribution, please visit the ActBlue TexRoots page.

A report from this weekend's SDEC Austin conclave

... from Open Source Dem. He provides as always a biting yet cogent view:

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

As usual, the SDEC meeting was … dysfunctional and dismaying for Democratic candidates and supporters -- for any citizen or patriot who might have witnessed it.

Please forgive me for not getting as depressed at this as some, but my son is dealing with the problem of self-government in northeast Baghdad. Now that is much worse. But don’t pity me, or him. He is young, fit and welcomes the challenge. He may be foolhardy but he is also learning political cunning and small-unit leadership skills.

It is winter here now, but republican democracy can blossom in Texas overnight. That is not true in most of the world, where our armed forces are being squandered by GOP idiots and Democratic cowards.

No business of consequence was conducted publicly in Austin Saturday. No big surprise.

The good news is that Lloyd CRISS got a precedent-breaking resolution past the Palace Guard. It is not an silly plea but a directive from the SDEC to its staff to mount a statewide GOTV campaign. That is not what the DLC/DCCC want. It is what they should have done in 2006. But it is also a precedent in demonstrating both the power and responsibility of the SDEC.

Otherwise, underneath the time-wasting and empty ritual, the Praetorians killed everything and began hinting at a new quest to kill off various “caucuses” that threaten professional control of the party. An exciting new concept was unveiled: not adopting, amending, ignoring or enforcing rules -- not even the usual ignorance, especially of Robert’s Rules -- now Rules Committee First Spear Centurion Bill Brannon has introduced the concept of “trumping” the rules with a mish-mash of parliamentary malarkey. This is less the usual mumbo jumbo than outright humiliation and intimidation of SDEC members.

The matter of applying for recognition by and membership on an Advisory Committee established by party rules will be difficult to conclude inasmuch as there appears to be a regular and an ad hoc committee each with the same name and “trumping” the rules. That is absurd, but what is new about that?

Here are my and David VAN OS’ comments at Texas Kaos.

To revisit the complaint, while party insiders claim to be “winning elections”, they actually minimized party performance in the 2006 Blue Wave -- essentially opting out of the DNC fifty-state strategy and adhering strictly to the DLC/DCCC “targeted campaign” effort. The TDP set new $/vote consultant-subsidy records and delivered two new “Bush Dogs” (Nick Lampson and Ciro Rodriguez) committed to prolonging the war in Iraq and extending it to Iran.

The TDP is also collaborating with TEAM implementation. That is the only tool we have for turning out new and unlikely voters. But that is not what consultants do: they are only interested in commissions from “likely voter” media and the Voter Activation Network is the only tool they have. It substitutes for direct TEAM access. So the TDP – solidly aligned behind the DLC/DCCC and governed by a remarkably unsuccessful gaggle of pimp-consultants -- has helped to reverse the “New Direction” promised by Nancy PELOSI and articulated spectacularly by Jim WEBB.

Thanks to a state party establishment rented out to the Texas Trust, Rahm EMANUEL is effectively Speaker of the House and Joe LIEBERMAN is actually the Senate Majority Leader. Matt ANGLE is effectively State Chair(man) and Martin FROST is Cardinal-Protector of the PACs. Super-rich donors -- out of state or, in the case of property-managers and concession-tenders, foreign -- have now created a Congressional majority that mimics the SDEC: it is less popular than even George W. BUSH and a drag on all Democratic campaigns. But the TDP is going all out (a) to maintain that death grip on this party and (b) to tie up and deliver a delegation of mind hostages -- drones, if you prefer -- to the national convention.

In 2008 the party elite are, again, protecting Craddick Democrats, leaving key GOP seats uncontested and remaining indifferent to, if not scared of, the populist uprising evident all across the country. They are using “McGovern Rules” (hard quotas) and sheer deception -- “rulesmanship” -- to hide control of the party by a handful of white male lawyers operating behind a velvet curtain of “inclusiveness”.

The simple fact of the matter is that both the Democratic and GOP party establishments would rather lose elections than lose control of their respective parties.

The sort of populist upwelling of political participation we now see is infrequent -- absent for intervals of 20-40 years -- as most voters pursue lives far removed from the deal culture of elite-controlled, collaborative parties. But, when populism is manifest, look out: populism is culturally driven, interest-constrained, and constitutionally operational. When the people -- in droves, as seen in Iowa and New Hampshire -- return to politics it is out of dire concern, expressed as either hope or anger but focused on what they consider to be their heritage, birthright, and posterity and not the petty, often corrupt, obsessions of political elitists.

Still, the dynamic is different within each party. Today’s GOP coalition of Trotskyites (neoconservatives), Darbyites (religious right), and Thatcherites (tax shifters) is self-destructing and radiating hate-filled absurdity, even as it collapses into a, well, “white hole”. But don’t smugly cheer: the center of the Republican Party today –- the federal, state, and local officials, not to mention a slew of Cold War paramilitary organs -- is now pumped up with 'War on Terror' and Homeland Security funds. These include not a few of the hard men -- absent Generals Rove and DeLay -- who think of politics as war itself, still well-trained and -funded to “do whatever it takes” to hold power, not least to set aside what is left of the Constitution. Whatever polls or for that matter our clap-trap elections say, this hard core of the GOP will not relinquish control gently.

The latent majority of Democrats -- a huge majority in Texas –- are in fact intensely patriotic, more frustrated than angry, filled with hope and not hate, and constructive, patient, and considerate; not destructive, desperate, or violent. Yes, we are confused by and annoyed with our party establishment. Yes, we need to get smart, replace them quickly, and move on to competitive rather than collaborative politics. That takes a real party; not plush offices in Austin, not an official entourage of young, pretty personal assistants, not kickbacks of free hospitality suites and limousines at state and national conventions run as over-priced “beauty pageants”, not a two-bit “likely-voter” campaign tool, scaled for individual House races, where a statewide get-out-the-vote program should be.

Once again the state party establishment is spending capital and mortgaging the future in a bid to boost its individual members up the patronage chain into state and federal appointed positions. They talk about winning elections, but all they are doing is currying favor with lobbies and aggrandizing themselves personally. Theirs is an exit strategy from politics that is, simply, more competitive than collaborative. The state party establishment is not really prepared or fit for competition.

What this calls for is a progressive populist caucus that has a plan and resources to take over the state convention, to inform delegates, to manage their time competently, to exercise plenary power of the state party, to exploit historic developments well underway, and to restore republican democracy to a fine party.

Our party is the first republican party in North American, the oldest democratic party in the world, but a decrepit and nearly inconsequential shell of its former self in Austin.

Sad as that is, parties are very lightweight institutions. All the Presidential candidates are talking change -- the easiest change of all being the discarding of a state party establishment of sycophants, toads, and fools. Actually, it is a good thing to be on the fringe of a party so badly run as ours in this state.

It makes the housecleaning more obvious and vital, for one thing.

The Weekly Wrangle

Once again the TPA's finest postings from the past seven days are collected (thanks to Vince at Capitol Annex).

Muse found the potties at the Harris County D.A.’s office -- thereby making her qualified to be District Attorney (according to Kelly Siegler). "Muse 2012: Qualified and Potty Location Trained."

Hide the silver! Off the Kuff says Tom DeLay is back in town.

CouldBeTrue at South Texas Chisme notes that Kay 'Bye Bye' Bailey Hutchison is getting grief from the knuckle-draggers in her own party for the recently passed border fence amendment. Apparently even a little bit of sanity must be stamped out by the Republican base.

Early voting, Hal at Half Empty says, may just be something ALL Democrats need to consider in order to avoid confusion at the polls when locations at schools are moved (due to TAKS schedules) this coming March.

The FairTax (Mike Huckabee's 30% national sales tax scheme), Texans for (Tort) Reform, and Houstonians for (Ir)Responsible Growth all have one billionaire in common: Leo Linbeck Jr. PDiddie at Brains and Eggs provides the 411 on Linbeck's various conservative-populist-activist shell companies.

WCNews at Eye On Williamson points to an inane AAS editorial on the AG's health care gambit.

Harry Balczak at McBlogger found an interesting take on the candidates in the presidential election.

Jaye at Winding Road notes that these are the times that try Democratic souls.

Gary at Easter Lemming Liberal News wants Obama or Clinton to pay the $2,000 and establish a precedent of auditing and hand-counting electronic ballots. The complete series of the New Hampshire results and the reasons why it may be a good idea to audit is here.

Vince at Capitol Annex notes that Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott is testing the waters for his 2010 run for lieutenant governor with his asinine child insurance program.

BossKitty at BlueBloggin reviews the history Of US-backed dictators - redux.

Stace at DosCentavos bids a fond farewell to the history-making candidacy of Bill Richardson and shares his thoughts and feelings on supporting the first Latino presidential candidate.

John Coby at Bay Area Houston wonders why state representative John Davis was a no-show in the local paper's write-up concerning the race for HD-129.

More Sunday Funnies (non-primary edition)