Meet the Democratic Statewides: Uribe, Bailey, Hampton

As the state convention opens today in Corpus, this series on the Texas Democratic Party's slate of statewide candidates continues with the bios and introductory videos of the candidates for Commissioner of the General Land Office Hector Uribe, and the nominees for state Supreme Court Blake Bailey and Court of Criminal Appeals Keith Hampton.



Uribe's goal is to lead the GLO from 20th century hydrocarbon-based energy sources to 21st century renewable ones. Uribe will vigorously battle global warming by promoting renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power, while preventing any negative impact to the revenue streams that flow into the Permanent School Fund.

Uribe has extensive experience in legislative and governmental advocacy, having served almost a decade in the Texas Senate and 3 years in the Texas House. Equal educational opportunity, economic development, and job creation were the hallmarks of Uribe’s tenure as a state senator.

He authored the bill to merge Pan American University into the UT System (it's now called UT-Kingsville), providing graduate programs to previously underserved college students in the Rio Grande Valley. He similarly authored the Texas Enterprise Zone Act, designed to create new businesses and jobs in economically depressed areas. His varied legislative committee assignments prepared him in a broad range of areas including the protection of our environment. He chaired the Senate’s standing subcommittee on Water and vice-chaired the joint subcommittee on Oil Spills and Water Pollution Abatement.

But again, the most significant differences come when you compare him to his opponent, incumbent Jerry Patterson. Look:

The Christmas Mountains, in the heart of the Big Bend region of Texas, were given to the state in 1991.  They should have been transferred to the National Park Service (NPS) and been made part of Big Bend National Park a long time ago.  However, Republican Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson has prevented that from happening, insisting that he wants to sell the Mountains to a private entity.

The foundation that gave the land to Texas wanted the Christmas Mountains to remain public.  Patterson refused to transfer the Mountains to the NPS because he claimed to take issue with any entity that disallows firearms – but in reality, Patterson is just an ineffective steward of Texas’ public lands who is more interested in selling Texas off than preserving it. [Source: NPR, 10/22/07]

Congress lifted the ban on firearms in National Parks and President Obama signed the bill into law earlier this year.  Because Patterson claimed his refusal to transfer the Mountains stemmed from the NPS ban on firearms, the hope was that he would finally transfer the Mountains to the National Park Service.  However, instead of sticking to what he said, Patterson just moved the goal posts.  He now says his problem is that hunting would not be allowed in the Mountains under Park Service control. [Source: Washington Post, 2/19/10; San Antonio Express-News, 4/9/10]

If the ban on hunting in national parks were lifted, would Patterson finally drop the act and transfer the Mountains, or just come up with another excuse?

With Hector Uribe, there are no questions about integrity.  On Hector’s first day as Land Commissioner, he will transfer the Christmas Mountains to the National Park Service, so that they can be cared for responsibly and enjoyed by Texans for generations to come.

Uribe’s focus will be on protecting Texas’ rich and wild environment.  He will be a responsible steward of our vast public lands -- not an ideologue who keeps moving the goal posts however it suits him.

Bailey's pet peeve is the same as mine: the 100% Republican Texas Supreme Court is completely biased against little-guy plaintiffs and in favor of the biggest corporations.

In a recent, Blake Bailey pointed out that Wal-Mart is far more successful appealing lawsuits in Texas than anywhere else in the country. From 1998 to 2005, Wal-Mart has won 100% of the appeals brought against them in Texas; outside of Texas, Wal-Mart has only won 56% of their appeals.

That statistic is the most staggering of a long trend facing the Texas Supreme Court: they have a controversial history of supporting big business in their rulings. From 2005-2006, eighty-two percent of all rulings went in favor of defendants. The rulings themselves wouldn’t be as much of an issue, if it weren’t for the contributions that came along with them.

From 2000-2008, the more money donated to Texas’ Supreme Court justices, the higher the chance of success. A study conducted by the non-partisan consumer advocacy group, Texas Watch, showed that the success rate among donors who gave to the justices on the Supreme Court increased based on how much the donors gave. Here’s a breakdown of their findings:

• 345 donors who had cases before the court gave less than $10,000. They had a success rate – a favorable court ruling – of 54%.

• 44 donors who had cases before the court gave between $10,000 and $24,999. Those 44 donors had a 58% success rate on their cases.

• 48 donors who had cases before the court gave more than $25,000. Those 48 donors had a whopping 64% success rate on their cases.

Justice should not be for sale, regardless of price or party. It is offensive to think that giving more money to the Texas Supreme Court justices will correlate with a higher success rate in the Court – but the findings detailed above demonstrate it to be true.

Bailey's opponent is recently-appointed Justice Eva Guzman... another of Rick Perry's ham-handed attempts at Hispanic outreach. Guzman has accepted large contributions from insurers and bragged on her website about how judicial "reform" has improved the business climate in Texas. Attorneys representing the state's largest insurance companies have even told Bailey point-blank that they were unconcerned about the verdict in a jury trial against his clients, because an appeal to the SCOTX virtually assured them of victory.

This "Supreme Court For Sale to Big Business" aspect is one of the most important things we can change in November.



Hampton is running for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 6. He is challenging two-term incumbent Republican Michael Keasler. When first elected in 1998, Keasler replaced the last Democrat to hold a seat on the Court. Since then the CCA has been under complete Republican control. Sound familiar?

Without any Democrats on the CCA for the past twelve years, the ideological spectrum of the Court has shifted dramatically to the right. One Republican judge on the Court, Lawrence Meyers, recently toured newspaper editorial boards promoting the state’s fairness, prompting Dallas Morning News Editor Michael Landauer to write, “Try not to laugh.” (Source: Dallas Morning News, June 2009). Scott Henson, an award-winning blogger who writes for the non-partisan criminal justice site Grits for Breakfast, wrote the following about the political nature of the CCA:

There is no liberal wing on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. There’s a conservative wing, to which Judge Johnson belongs, and a more or less totalitarian wing, in which Keasler and Meyers reside along with Presiding Judge Sharon Keller. (Source: Grits for Breakfast, June 2009)

The “totalitarian wing” of the Court has a well-documented and thoroughly perplexing history of unprofessional actions. From the “sleeping lawyer” case in October 2000, to investigations into the judicial conduct of Sharon Keller in 2007, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is in desperate need of professional, accountable judges on its bench.

In order to restore a semblance of fairness and justice to the Court, Texas Democrats can help elect Keith Hampton to the Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 6.

Later today: Bill White.

Greens ballot bid was GOP corporate-funded

Let's leave it to one of the Greens' highest-ranking officers to deliver the news.

In a June 10 e-mail to other Green Party officials, state party treasurer David Wager said, “I was promised by a representative of Take Initiative America that the organization was not a corporation and that he would comply with all disclosure requests. Today I was informed that the organization is in fact a corporation and they will not disclose their donors. They claim that their collection of signatures and in-kind contribution was not political. I don’t agree. In my opinion, we have no choice but to refuse the signatures.”

Now that e-mail is nearly two weeks old, and the Greens have been a little defiant since then, hiring Republican attorney Andy Taylor to defend their bid to to gain 2010 ballot access. So who's to say if this means they're going to keep fighting in the courts. My guess is yes. There's a hearing on Friday.

Hat tip to Phillip Martin at BOR.

Petraeus

After listening to Keith Olbermann and Lawrence Wilkinson last night advocate for McChrystal remaining in his post, I determined that would be both the shrewdest course of action and something Obama would not do. And sure enough ...

President Obama removed Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal as commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan on Wednesday, moving quickly to restore the unity of his administration's war effort after the general and his top aides in biting remarks in an explosive magazine article.

Obama named Gen. David H. Petraeus, the former commander of U.S. forces in Iraq and currently the head of the U.S. Central Command, to replace McChrystal and urged the Senate to confirm him promptly.

But Obama reaffirmed in blunt terms the counterinsurgency strategy he ordered last year, and he said that "war is bigger than any one man or woman, whether a private, a general or a president."

This move actually makes slightly more sense, blunting conservative criticism by tapping their Iraq hero for the job. As Laurence Lewis posted:

Conservative critics of President Obama long have derided him as weak. Intellectual, reserved, unemotional. When the BP oil gusher exploded, they criticized him for not taking aggressive enough action. Despite otherwise being critics of federal government. And then when he took decisive action by shutting down deepwater drilling and forcing BP to set aside $20 billion as a beginning of their debt repayment, they criticized him for overreaching and being a thug.

With the removal of General Stanley McChrystal from command of Afghan military operations, you can be certain that we will hear more right wing criticism. No matter what the President does, the right will criticize him. But those like McChrystal and his supporters who might have thought the President was weak now have their answer. He's the Commander-in-Chief, in a government that has civilian rule over the military. There is a chain of command. He knows it, and they that dared flout it now know it.

Let the critics come. Who looks weak now?

And of course this change maintains continuity of command and the strategy in Afghanistan and all that blahblahblah. July 2011 remains the withdrawal start date, and frankly it can't come soon enough.

Now back to the Gulf oil catastrophe, the economy, the multiple reform legislation battles ...

Meet the Democratic Statewides: Chavez-Thompson, Moody, Weems

With the Texas Democratic Party opening their state convention in Corpus Christi tomorrow, let's take a look at the introductory videos of the candidates for lieutenant governor, state Supreme Court, and railroad commissioner: Linda Chavez-Thompson, Bill Moody, and Jeff Weems.



Chavez-Thompson's life story is compelling, and offers the starkest contrast imaginable between the GOP and the Dems at the statewide level. From the TDP's candidate piece:

As a child, Linda Chavez-Thompson picked cotton to support her family and couldn’t afford to finish her education. Through years of hard work, Linda rose to national prominence as a leader for working families, and today, she is running for Lieutenant Governor to make sure every Texas child has the opportunities that weren’t available to her.

Linda Chavez-Thompson may be an underdog running against a millionaire, but unlike David Dewhurst and the Republicans, Linda knows we can’t afford to write off a generation of Texas children who must be prepared for good jobs in the new economy.

Just last year, David Dewhurst showed he was willing to write off thousands of Texans by applying a different standard to us than he applies to himself. During the debate on the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Dewhurst demanded that working families re-enroll for CHIP coverage every six months instead of annually, saying he doesn’t think people “have a lot of sympathy for someone that can’t fill out a two-page application every six months.” Yet when it came to his own business dealings, Dewhurst failed to file legal forms in a timely fashion six times -- forms required to conduct his business legally in Texas.

After twelve years in statewide office, David Dewhurst may think he is entitled to special treatment, but Texans have had their fill of hypocritical politicians who use their offices for career advancement while ignoring the everyday concerns of Texas families.

Moody collected more votes than any other Democrat in 2006, narrowly losing his contest against Republican Paul Green -- who has turned in a record of near-invisibility since. From Moody's TDP candidate piece:

Judge Bill Moody is running for Texas Supreme Court, Place 5. Judge Moody was one of our most successful statewide candidates in 2006, earning more votes than any other Democrat on the ballot. In the twenty-three years he has worked as a judge, he has tried over five hundred jury trials. Over his long and distinguished career, he has earned a reputation for hard work and a commitment to ensuring justice in Texas’ courts.

The same cannot be said for his opponent, Justice Paul Green. First elected to the Texas Supreme Court in 2004, Green’s absence from the opinion-making process is a perfect example for why we need fresh ideas and committed public servants on Texas’ highest court.

Of 144 rulings issued in fiscal year 2007, Justice Green issued an opinion in only four cases. That’s right -- Paul Green issued a ruling in less than 3% of cases in which the Texas Supreme Court took action, the fewest of any Justice on the Court. (Source: San Antonio Express-News)

Green is the symptom of a much larger problem. An analysis by Texas Watch in February 2008 showed that it took the Texas Supreme Court an average of 852 days to dispose of a case -- approximately 2.3 years. Even after oral arguments were finished, it would take the Justices on the Court over a year to write an opinion on the case they heard. (Source: Texas Watch)  As Texas Watch argued in their report:

Cases in which a consumer has won at the lower appellate level comprise the majority of cases the Court accepts for review. By keeping these cases on hold for inordinate amounts of time, the Court makes it more likely that injured patients will go without recompense for lost wages and medical expenses, individuals will be forced to declare bankruptcy, and matters involving children are delayed.

The snail’s pace of Paul Green and the entirely Republican Texas Supreme Court is harmful to Texans looking to get their fair day in court. Yet while Green has shown little concern for swift justice, he has been expedient in charging Texas taxpayers for his travel expenses.

Over the course of three years, Justice Green filed for mileage reimbursements for 272 separate trips between Austin, where he lives in an Austin apartment, and San Antonio, his home town. The 272 trips totaled over $16,000 in travel expenses.  (Source: The Houston Chronicle)

This November, Texans will have a chance to change the Texas Supreme Court. The contrast between Bill Moody’s extensive experience and Green’s slow-paced and controversial behavior on the bench could not be any clearer. Texans who believe hard work and fairness should be the hallmark of a Texas Supreme Court justice should support Moody this November.

Weems, like many of the other Democrats on the statewide slate, has experience that dwarfs his opponent's. You may recall that TeaBagger David Porter edged incumbent GOP Railroad Commissioner Victor Carillo in a bitter primary last spring where Carillo suggested that his Hispanic surname was a liability in the Republican party. From Weems' TDP candidate piece:

Jeff Weems brings a lifetime’s worth of firsthand experience to the Texas Railroad Commission. Republican candidate David Porter, on the other hand, is completely unqualified.


The Amarillo Globe-News called Jeff Weems’ credentials “superior.” [Source: Amarillo-Globe News, 4/11/10]  Weems is an oil and gas attorney by trade, and has worked in the oil and gas industry since high school. He worked his way through college on the rigs and as a drilling mud representative. Jeff earned a degree from the University of Texas in Petroleum Land Management and worked as a landman, negotiating complex commercial transactions. Since earning his law degree from UT, he has spent 20 years as an energy lawyer. ...

Republican challenger David Porter, on the other hand, has no experience for the job. He told the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal that his qualifications include working as an accountant and owning property that happens to have pipelines on it. [Source: Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, 2/17/10]

But even worse than his inexperience is that Porter has seemingly no understanding of the responsibilities of the Commission he is trying to lead -- and resorts to irrelevant partisan rhetoric to distract from both his inexperience and lack of knowledge.  He thinks global warming is a myth.  [Source:  Porter’s Editorial Endorsement Interview with the Dallas Morning News 2/10]  His disturbing misunderstanding of the role of Railroad Commissioner is evident from his “Why I am Running” statement on his website:

“The Obama administration cap and trade energy tax, the proposed changes in tax law such as doing away with percentage depletion…are a de facto declaration of economic war by the current administration on the Texas oil and gas industry.” [Porter campaign website]

Porter either doesn’t know, or doesn’t care, that the Texas Railroad Commission does not draft, enforce or otherwise deal with federal cap and trade legislation or tax law.

Porter’s campaign has focused on “anti-Washington, D.C., anti-Obama rhetoric” because he is frighteningly inexperienced and has nothing to run on but empty slogans.  As someone who thinks climate change is not real, Porter is unfit to effectively take care of our state’s vast energy resources.  Capitol Inside described Porter as “a candidate who had almost no money and even less name identification for a race that he’d entered 15 minutes before the filing deadline simply because no other challenger had signed up to run for the post.” [Capitol Inside, 4/16/10]

Texans deserve a Railroad Commissioner who understands the job, and Jeff Weems delivers a lifetime of experience.

Tomorrow: the two remaining judicial candidates Keith Hampton and Blake Bailey (there's already some about them at Burnt Orange), Hector Uribe, and Bill White.

McChrystal: what should be the penalty?

So should he be fired? The military details several responses for insubordination, including loss of rank.

The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan has been summoned to Washington to explain derogatory comments about President Barack Obama and his colleagues, administration officials said Tuesday.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who publicly apologized Tuesday for using "poor judgment" in an interview in Rolling Stone magazine (.pdf), has been ordered to attend the monthly White House meeting on Afghanistan and Pakistan in person Wednesday rather than over a secure video teleconference, according to officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. He'll be expected to explain his comments to Obama and top Pentagon officials, these officials said.

Obama has the authority to fire McChrystal. His predecessor, Gen. David McKiernan, was sacked on grounds that the military needed "new thinking and new approaches" in Afghanistan.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen has told McChrystal of his "deep disappointment" over the article, a spokesman said.

Though McChrystal has not, as far as we know (isn't that phrase simply the most devastating, backhanded insinuation, by the way?), disobeyed a direct order -- that is both the military's as well as the corporate definition of 'insubordination' -- some punishment more severe than harsh language seems in order.

Should he just be chastised? Or relieved of command? Busted back to colonel? Placed before a firing squad? (That would be my preference, based only on past history.)

Allowed to retire in disgrace?

And in the wake of the fact that Afghanistan has now become America's longest war ever, still with no end in sight, with McChrystal's own officers questioning his strategy, is another new general going to make any difference anyway?

Are we in Afghanistan at this point so that we can mine their mineral deposits? Then let the corporations hire the mercenaries to fight there.

Update: Barbara Morrill notes that the Uniform Code of Military Justice defines insubordination as including "contemptuous words".  There's also a poll at that link that currently indicates 80% of more than 7,000 respondents think McChrystal should be cashiered (I voted 'unsure').

Update II: It's not the general; it's the war.

A war that can't be won, in support of an Afghan government that can't govern, and an Afghan military that can't fight? And the Afghan people just continue to suffer.

Meet the Democratic Statewides: Radnofsky, Gilbert, Sharp

As the 2010 Texas Democratic Party's statewide convention (.pdf) comes forward on the schedule this weekend, let's feature the videos of the statewide slate, starting with the three I know best (they were all on the 2006 ticket), Barbara Ann Radnofsky,  Hank Gilbert, and Jim Sharp.



Barbara has kept the heat on the inept, incompetent incumbent: attorney general Greg Abbott, who needs no introduction to regular readers here. This week she has challenged him to pursue litigation against Wall Street's tycoons, who perpetuated the fraud our economy still reels from. From her Kos diary:

Wall Street firms have harmed Texas and all of America. I've proposed a State Attorney General lawsuit and to work at no fee to help solve the problem.

Our people are unemployed. Our home values have plummeted. And, our state governments are making savage cuts to our schools, our kids' healthcare and more.

These facts give states, including Texas, the right to sue Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and other firms for wrongdoing.

It's time for state Attorneys General to file these law suits.

I provided Texas Attorney General Abbott the $18 billion lawsuit which should be filed on an urgent basis, ahead of the approaching deadline. The right to sue for negligence will likely expire in September 2010 (due to a 2 year legal "Limitation" period in Texas) so time is of the essence. I offered Attorney General Abbott the Complaint for the lawsuit and offered my legal services at no fee to work on the case. The Legal Complaint and Legal Memo are available at SueWallStreet.com explaining states suffering the harm have the right to go after the wrongdoers.

Hank takes on worthless hack Todd Staples, who is seemingly frantic about another challenge to his position as commissioner of agriculture. Gilbert lately exposed the incumbent for shady dealings regarding broadband internet access for rural Texans. Here's the press release from Connected Nation and Staples.

Connected Nation is well-connected, all right: to Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T. The company is first in line to collect federal stimulus dollars -- $4 billion -- earmarked for the massive project of determining where broadband access will go in the hinterlands of America. Staples, on behalf of of the state of Texas, has outsourced a $3 million dollar contract to CN despite serious questions about the company's work in other states, questions about the bidding process (Staples got $60,000 from the Texas Farm Bureau, whose former president is listed as a 'national advisor' of CN), and even questions about CN's business model. Read more about that here, and also at the Wall Street Journal. And when Staples's office started getting media attention about his relationship with CN, the Texas Department of Agriculture directed reporters to the Staples re-election campaign, which then regurgitated their previous negative attacks on Gilbert.

Jim Sharp is the Democratic candidate for the Texas Supreme Court Place 3, running against Republican nominee and freshly-appointed Debra Lehrmann, yet another Rick Perry lackey. Sharp was elected Justice of the Texas First Court of Appeals in 2008, and as such is one of the few Democrats serving a multi-county portion of the state in any capacity. Read more about Sharp at Texas Lawyer, Off the Kuff, and Half Empty.

Tomorrow this space will feature Linda Chavez-Thompson, Bill Moody, and Jeff Weems.

Is Kesha Rogers the Texas version of Alvin Greene?

TIME thinks so.

South Carolina's unexpected Democratic nominee for the US Senate, mystery man Alvin Greene, says he wants to play golf with Barack Obama. But in Texas, another surprise Democratic primary winner, congressional nominee Kesha Rogers, wants to impeach the President. So while South Carolina party officials are still unsure of what to do about Greene's success at the ballot box, Texas Democrats have no such reservations — they wasted little time in casting Rogers into exile and offering no support or recognition of her campaign to win what once was Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay's old seat.

Several of my blog hermanos y hermanas cast aspersions on Rogers' nomination, you may recall.

Unlike South Carolina's Greene, Rogers ran a high profile campaign, staking out a corner on a major intersection in the district to appear almost daily with a large sign: "Save NASA. Impeach Obama." She garnered 7,467 votes, 53% of the vote, in a three way race that included a local information systems analyst Doug Blatt, who gained endorsements from local Democratic clubs and labor groups, and Freddie John Weider Jr., a preacher and onetime Libertarian candidate; Blatt came in second with 28% of the vote and Weider won 20%. "The people of the 22nd district voted for me," she said. "They recognized the party is not acting in the interests of the people."

Her name was also -- like Greene's -- first on the ballot, and as wingnut blogger Greg points out, it could have been her name, or maybe it was the media's fault. Continuing from TIME ...

Meanwhile, the state party has adopted a resolution denying any party support for Rogers, citing the alleged racist and discriminatory views of the LaRouche movement — allegations that Rogers, who is African-American, firmly rejects. District 22 has also been stricken from the party's official online list of congressional races. ...

One theory, according to a Democratic Party insider, is Rogers benefitted from her name being in the top position on the Fort Bend County ballot, where African-American Democratic interest was high in two local races. But Rogers rejects that notion. "I went to senior citizens centers. I was knocking on doors everywhere — everyone knew my positions, " she told TIME. "I don't think the Democratic Party leadership is getting it. The people continue to see more and more economic devastation and they don't see any real leadership." And for now, the party leadership will pretend that it can't see Rogers. 

Lastly, Open Source Dem weighs in with this opinion:

Both the GOP and even the LaRouche organization have “dirty tricks machines”, parodies actually of psychological warfare and disinformation operations by military and military intelligence organizations.

The GOP thinks they are waging “politics as war” (Gingrich); the LaRouche outfit is waging “permanent revolution” (Trotsky).  It is not funny: Real people get hurt and the media returns are huge from relatively little outlay of funds.

Frankly, I am tired of Democrats whining about this.

These folks have 'declared war' but cringing liberals are just running around in circles wringing their hands and moaning “won’t anybody think about the children!”  The Democratic Party establishment is supporting the candidacy of LaRouche associate Kesha Rogers and remains “inclusive” of the LaRouche movement. Anything else is, evidently, an challenge to the legal imagination and vanity of Boyd Richie and Gerry Birnberg. (ed. note: though the Senate District Executive Committee of the Texas Democratic Party -- led by Richie -- has passed a resolution denying support to Rogers, Harris County Chair Birnberg favors her candidacy, as noted here.)

The Democratic Party establishment is also trying to deny ballot access to the Green Party based on a campaign finance -- or ethical -- argument against the Green Party, not the GOP operatives nor the source of funding for this “op”.

There is no doubt in my mind that the GOP wants (a) to suppress the latent Democratic majority in Texas, (b) to sow dissention among Democrats, and (c) to shave votes from Bill White. But they can probably “comply” with “ethics” laws as artfully as Matt Angle and the Democratic Party.

So is Andy Taylor smarter than Buck Wood or Chad Dunn? Probably not, but who cares?  Is any of this gamesmanship really politics or actually strategic?

No! The GOP is promoting the Green Party and the TDP is publicizing it. Who is stupider? It is a close call.

The main threat the Green Party poses is to clerk candidates in Bexar and Harris counties. But the Hart InterCivic company is not worried about that, so the party establishment in Austin is not either. They are trying to piggyback on and justify themselves to Bill White’s campaign. Otherwise they are doing whatever Matt Angle pays them to.

One could objectively, if amorally, admire a pimp-consultant like Angle if he was actually smart or proficient. But Wallenstein he isn’t. Tilly, maybe.

Cringing, gullible liberals and nostalgic, vindictive conservatives -- plus vain, underemployed lawyers -- do not for a strong, strategic, or victorious party make.

They cannot even whip a senile Trotskyite or a few GOP frat-boys playing “covert operator”.