Sunday Evening Funnies

Aaron Peña is a putz.

Unbelievable, even for a duplicitous weasel like him:

One of Hillary Clinton’s top supporters in the Rio Grande Valley appeared at a Barack Obama rally Friday and said the presidential primary was the Illinois senator’s race to lose.

State Rep. Aaron Peña, who, in print and on TV has been a leading outreach activist in the Valley for Clinton, shocked many Friday morning when he sat down with his family in the stands behind the stage at an Obama rally at the University of Texas-Pan American.

Guardian video-journalists were sitting opposite in the press riser. Contacted by phone while he waited for Obama to arrive, Peña told the Guardian he was at the event to see history being made.

“First of all my son, Aaron Peña III, is working for the Obama campaign. Second, I am here with my family to see history being made,” Peña said. ...

Asked if he had now flipped over to Obama, Peña said: “I will maintain my commitment but it appears to me that the decision will be made by the public on March 4. I made a commitment to Hillary Clinton and I must maintain it. I gave my word. However, as an observer, it appears to be increasingly evident who is going to win.”

A switch by Peña to the Obama camp will come as a major disappointment to Clinton and her campaign in Texas. Clinton introduced Peña at a rally in McAllen last week.

I'm obviously no supporter of Senator Clinton's but this is just ridiculously sorry of Peña. He's shown more lasting support for Tom Craddick. He could have just switched his endorsement, or let his family go to the Obama rally without him, or re-declare himself "undecided" and any of those would've looked less stupid than sitting in the stands behind Barack Obama after standing in a crowd of Hillary supporters in the same week.

Aaron Peña is in a contested primary for the HD-40 seat with Eddie Saenz, who would be a much more effective representative in the Texas House.

Jim Crow lives

Once again the searing commentary on state and county political machinations, along with the biting wit, of Open Source Dem:

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

Election officials at early voting in Harris County are being told by the GOP County Clerk to ration convention tickets -- or caucus slips, as they are known -- as well as to stamp voter registration certificates with party affiliation only optionally. The hapless Democratic primary director has to settle for assurances that the Republican Clerk will get the Hart InterCivic company to print some more slips ... eventually. ;-)

Note: These dinky slips and stamps are all there is in the way of party credentials. They are quite deliberately shabby and insecure so the party establishment can discriminate in admitting or ejecting Democrats from the conventions, but look the other way at police informants and agents provocateur planted in the Democratic conventions by the GOP. Texas law provides for “closed primaries” but bi-partisan coalitions in Austin and Houston – the establishments of both parties, lawyers mostly – make sure not to enforce or administer that part of the law. This is legalism: clerical democracy – an oxymoron – not republican democracy.

This will frustrate the CLINTON campaign in Harris County (if there actually is one) but thwart the OBAMA campaign even more. The deception, confusion, and time-wasting in primary elections and three levels of caucus/convention are no accident.

The Democratic Party state and county chairs assiduously avoid controversy with GOP county and state officials by deferring to them abjectly and by relying exclusively on the closely held, now GOP-controlled Hart firm to micromanage Texas election law, logistics, and technology since the heyday of segregation. In Harris County, the Democratic Party does not contract with the county to conduct the Democratic primary.

There is no fund, no contract. The Republican County Clerk runs the Democratic primary and counts on the Democratic county chairman to keep quiet about it.

“The Way We’ve Always Done It!”

And, of course, neither the voter registration card (still in the form of a poll tax receipt) nor the caucus slip gives a Democratic voter the least clue when and where precinct conventions will be held.

This would be a small matter were it not just one of myriad impediments to republican democracy within the Texas Democratic Party that the establishment has created and carefully maintained for over a century. Most recently, the cringing party leaders gifted the GOP-controlled Texas Legislature with custody of the Jim Crow-vintage Texas Election Code and punted lawyer-mediated “civil rights” gestures to the GOP-controlled Department of Justice.

Basically we have a competition here in Harris County within the Democratic Party between a low turnout, self-perpetuating party establishment which routinely collaborates with the GOP in county and state government to tend the government concessions that yield large campaign donations and to protect incumbent “CRADDICK Democrats”, and now to support the DLC/CLINTON candidacy ...

... versus the "high-information" OBAMA campaign, which could be sabotaged and is already clearly bewildered by the state party establishment and its perversely complex “prima-caucus” system -- a kludge, actually.

This is a “class war” (the party aristocracy and their mercenary pimp-consultants within the Democratic Party versus bourgeois volunteer “envelope stuffers”, and now the “net-roots”) as described here and here by Chris BOWERS at Open Left:

Superdelegate endorsements (aristocratic) Caucus support (bourgeois):

Clinton: 240 (60%) Obama: 278 delegates (65%)
Obama: 162.5 (40%) Clinton: 151 delegates (35%)

Contributions from large donors Contributions from small donors
(as of 12/31, aristocratic): (as of 12/31, bourgeois):

Clinton: $49.4M Obama: $31.9M
Obama: $33.2M Clinton: $13.8M

This is not “class war” as a Marxist would use the term. It is the old Federalist-Whig versus Republican-Democrat division in American politics since 1800, and as manifested by a Jim Crow coalition in Washington and Austin between “Moderate Republicans” and “Conservative Democrats” since 1874.

“Jes’ He’p Ever’body!”

Without regard to the personal merits of either Hillary CLINTON or Barack OBAMA, the challenge to Texas Democrats -- other than about 200 of the party’s ruling elite -- is to overthow the party establishment in convention and to repeal the last vestiges of Jim Crow starting with the absurd party rules! This is in the interest of both candidates. Remember, the party elite would rather lose the election in November than lose control of the state or county party, and they have done exactly that again and again, consistently:

Texas is a battleground state with a latent Democratic majority and has been since at least 2000. Harris County is damn nearly the 25^th largest blue state in its own right. And we will or will not elect the next President of the United States depending on the state and county political mobilization -- aka Get Out The Vote. Only the Democratic Party in Texas does not have a Get Out the Vote capability or interest. The party is optimized for (a) protecting corrupt incumbents and (b) sharing power in Austin and other large cities with the GOP. That is the Jim Crow coalition today. It used to be notorious for overt racism. Now it just deals in racial patronage. But Jim Crow was always about economic discrimination and privilege, especially within the Democratic Party.

So the main difference between Texas and Ohio is our cornpone party establishment: straight out of the latest Grisham novel set in Mississippi, or “Texas with bad roads”, as Molly IVINS might quip. But that will shortly be the responsibility of Democratic state convention delegates.

Those delegates in convention are the highest authority in this party, not the party elite.

Delegates will be deceived, confused, and have their time wasted by the party elite through their control of the county and state party apparatus. But the bourgeois can and should defeat the clerical aristocracy of this party. The Texas Democratic elites will claim that they are only advocates for the "poor, pitiful (fill in the blank)" and try to shame or intimidate the delegates who pay their own way to the convention and do not bill by the hour or collect contingent fees like lawyers.

But, in convention, all Democrats -- for two days -- are equal.

Note: The convention convenes the afternoon of Thursday, 4 June 2008. But, the state party tells delegates to show up the next afternoon after various tricks and traps to protect the incumbent party officials are in place.

The party aristocracy controls the microphones, the walkie-talkies, and the mumbo-jumbo. But, 6,000 delegates ought to be able to defeat about 200 aristocrats, a few dozen mercenary pimp-consultants, and maybe 600 sycophantic hangers-on in convention before they can sabotage both campaigns, squander our money, and lose yet another general election.

There will be a “Coalition for Change” challenging the party elite in convention.

Both CLINTON and OBAMA supporters should get behind it. From March to June, this populist coalition will make the difference between real conventions and a mock beauty pageant. From June to November, it will make the difference between a real party and keeping Texas a red state run by a Jim Crow coalition.

McCain had an affair?

At his age? With a wife as cute as this?

Early in Senator John McCain’s first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers.

A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, in his offices and aboard a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.

Maverick is on the verge of clinching the nomination, and now there's a bimbo eruption?

I'm guessing this won't amount to much, but still.

McCain had a lobbyist girlfriend when he was in his mid-sixties?

Say what you want about the ethical lapse or the appearance of corruption, but ... McCain had a chippy on the side? That is just remarkable. Viagra truly is a wonder drug.

Update: Scout Finch ...

Regardless of whether they were having an intimate affair or not, didn't John McCain realize that it was inappropriate for a telecommunications lobbyist to be "turning up with him at fund-raisers, in his offices and aboard a client’s corporate jet?" How could he not realize how inappropriate that is on a variety of levels? But this isn't the first time that John McCain used poor judgement when it comes to lobbyists. And it wouldn't be the first time (by his own admission) that he cheated on his wife. He married his current wife, Cindy, only one month after he divorced his first wife. ...

It seems that poor judgement is a theme in John McCain's life. This story is bad for him from so many angles. I'm not sure if McCain survives this one. Speculation about an affair is one thing, but an intimate relationship with a telecommunications lobbyist? Not smart. Not smart at all.

And somewhere Mike Huckabee is smiling. Stay tuned.

Houbama

"We do know this, Houston: The change we seek is still months away and we need the good people of Texas to get there," Obama said. "If we're blessed and honored to win the nomination, then we're going to need you to help win the election in November."

We rode the train downtown and stood for an hour in one of two lines that snaked along the front, around the corner, and down the side of Toyota Center, but my feet were hurting and my blood sugar low so we stepped out of line about 7 p.m., walked over to the BUS, ate, and went home.

The audience of approximately 19,000, which had waited hours for him to speak, drowned Obama out time and again as he described his vision of change in America and called Washington a place "where good ideas go to die." The crowd cheered and chanted Obama's battle cry of "Yes, we can!"

He promised the crowd he will end predatory lending practices that contributed to the national mortgage lending crisis. He said he will end lobby influence in Washington. And he said he will replace tax breaks for wealthy people and corporations that ship jobs overseas with tax cuts for the middle class.

Obama also said he wants to reform the immigration system. He has promised to bring those who are productive workers onto the path to citizenship while punishing employers who hire illegal workers.

"If you are ready for a change, we can stop using immigration as a political football," he said.

Obama's speech began about 8:40 p.m. and lasted for 45 minutes; except for the list of locals whom he thanked and a brief description from the card given to all inside describing the complicated Texas prima-caucus, he spoke without notes or teleprompter. Here's the first half:



Oh yeah, about that early voting that started yesterday:

By the end of the day, 9,233 ballots were cast in the Democratic primary; 2,914 in the Republican, said Harris County Clerk's spokesman Hector de Leon. First-day totals for early voting in the 2004 presidential primary totaled 849 in the Democratic contests and 678 in the Republican.

I put out signs at 5:30 a.m. at my EV poll -- Fiesta Mart, at the intersection of OST and Kirby, in the shadow of Reliant Stadium -- and returned to vote about 10 a.m., after my doctor's appointment. There were about twenty e-Slates available but only half a dozen or so occupied; the bottleneck was at sign-in, where the lines were two and three deep. None of the registrars were offering to stamp voter registration cards or offering "receipts" for attending the March 4 caucuses, and when I asked to have my card stamped, the pad was so dry that my "Democratic" stamp was barely readable. Not from overuse, either.

Not the sort of difficulty that should be happening on the first day of voting.

We got home about 8 p.m., turned on the teevee to see if they had called Wisconsin, and watched Obama give that speech. Jeffrey Toobin of CNN declared it "too long".

Go on over to FOX, Jeff. Douchesack.

The final noteworthy event of the evening was Austin's Kirk Watson proving to be an embarrassment to himself, and pretty much all of us in Texas, by failing to name a legislative accomplishment of Obama's when challenged by Tweety the Screamer Chris Matthews of MSNBC. Keith Olbermann tried to save Watson by pulling hard on Matthews' leash, but the cause was long lost by that time.

Other than that, a good time was had by all.

Oh yeah: Bill Clinton was downtown too.

Update: Watson has some answers now. Update (2/21): More photos inside and outside of Toyota Center here and here.

Will the squishy centrists abandon Obama?

No. At least not enough of them to matter. But that doesn't stop Froma Harrop from advancing the false premise. After citing a couple of her friends as evidence, there's this:

The notion that many Clinton voters cannot be easily transferred to Obama contradicts much "expert" opinion. But a Super Tuesday exit poll suggested there is something to it. While 52 percent of Obama's supporters were amenable to a Clinton candidacy, only 49 percent of Clinton voters said they'd be happy with the Illinois senator, according to the survey by Harvard University's Institute of Politics.

A laughably ludicrous interpretation of that poll, considering that the margin of error is great enough to flip it the other way. The actual scientific polling suggests precisely the opposite, in fact: Obama edges McCain while Clinton trails badly. Presumably he does so with a majority of self-described Democratic "moderates". Either that, or he's sweeping independents and conservatives. So with that much faulty thinking it's no wonder she arrives at this conclusion:

What Democrats must understand is that their moderates now have another candidate to consider. And this slice of the electorate is big enough and grumpy enough to swing a general election to John McCain.

No, it isn't. And whatever the amount is, it has already been overcome by the legions of new and mobilized young and minority voters, as well as by conservatives making the switch from Republican primary voter to Democratic. A much more obvious trend verified by actual turnout, if Ms. Harrop had bothered to look at, you know, results of states that have already voted.

Froma, if you want to do a column based on anecdotal evidence then let's hear about the effect of Hillary Clinton at the top of the November ticket on downballot Democrats. Because that evidence is overwhelming.

As for mushy "centrists" and "moderates", Jim Hightower said it best: "There's nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos."