Your Christmas gift is that there will be no more debates

Gingrich, Romney ready for Iowa sprint:

Given his likely strength in the Jan. 10 New Hampshire primary, Romney may be able to survive a so-so finish in Iowa. It appears more important for Gingrich to win Iowa, or come close, and Thursday's two-hour televised debate in Sioux City probably helped his cause.

It wasn't so much that the former House speaker had a solid second hour after a somewhat shaky start. It's more that Rep. Ron Paul, the libertarian-leaning Texan, expressed his anti-war, anti-interventionist views so vehemently that he may have turned off mainstream Republicans who otherwise might have helped him to a surprising first-place finish.

My favorite line, from Dr. No ...

"Do terrorists go to Switzerland and Sweden to commit terrorism? No, we're bombing them."

He has been stealing this joke from Osama bin Laden for some time now. It's also not factual. Speaking of untruths:

"I balanced the budget for four straight years, paid off $405 billion in debt." -- Newt Gingrich

Gingrich was off on both claims concerning the budget. The budget was indeed balanced for four years, but it’s a stretch for him to take credit for more than two of those years (since he was no longer in Congress). As for paying off $405 billion in debt, the data we found shows the debt actually increased during Gingrich’s four-year tenure as speaker by more than $800 billion.

I think Mitt Romney has to be feeling a lot better about his prospects this morning.

Roundup of some highly readables

With a little extra downtime on my hands as a result of my stepmother's passing Tuesday, and with all arrangements completed and awaiting services and committal Saturday, here is some of what I am reading this morning to share with you.

-- Michael Li has everything you want to know with respect to the latest on the Supreme Court's Texas election clusterfudge. That's a good half-hour's worth alone.

-- Rahm Emanuel is a thug. And like my friend Neil, I hope Occupy takes over his town next May.

-- Seven Occupy the Port of Houston protestors were released yesterday after a judge ruled that an arm tube was insufficient evidence to represent a felony charge of using "anything" in the act of civil disobedience.

There is justice occasionally, and sometimes it is sweeter than a clementine.

-- Plumes of methane, a greenhouse gas 20 times worse than carbon dioxide, are streaming into the atmosphere as Arctic permafrost thaws. It's pretty much over for humans (and the rest of most living things) on this planet now. The only question left  is how much longer do we have.

-- Finally, in the context of a) not ending this post on a depressing note, and b) offering a bit of comedic value besides a toon, there is yet another GOP not-so-presidential debate tonight on Fox moderated by something called a Cavuto.

Hilarity should ensue. Seriously.

Update: Oh yeah, one more thing: There is Only One Issue in America, according to Steven Van Zandt. As a disciple, he is of course correct.

Third-party presidential candidate news

Because no one else will ever blog about it.

Glenn Beck, Joe Scarborough tout Ron Paul as third-party candidate:

Some conservative commentators are laying the groundwork for backing Texas congressman Ron Paul as a third party candidate if the Republicans nominate Newt Gingrich to face Democratic President Barack Obama. Even as many on the right warm to the liberty-loving lawmaker, more of the mainstream media is beginning to consider him a factor in the GOP primary battle already underway.

MSNBC host Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman and longtime Gingrich critic, today spoke favorably about a possible Paul general election candidacy as a reaction to “big government” conservative Gingrich. The co-host of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program invoked the words of conservative radio show host Glenn Beck in welcoming a potential Paul insurgency in the 2012 general election.

“Yesterday, Glenn Beck said something that I guarantee you a lot of small-government conservatives, like me, have thought. And that is, if I have to choose between Barack Obama and Newt Gingrich, a guy that George Will said would have been a ‘marvelous Marxist’ and who is the opposite of being a small-government conservative — if Ron Paul’s running as a third-party candidate, I’m going to give him a long look. Because I can’t vote for the two guys who worship at the altar of big government in their own separate ways. And that’s the problem with a Newt Gingrich candidacy. He’s not a small government conservative.”

Really, it makes perfect sense. But Paul still has a shot at scrambling the GOP race if he wins Iowa. He trails Newt in the latest poll there by a single point.

Over the past week, Gingrich's 9-point lead has shrunk to a single point over the folksy Paul, according to Public Policy Poling.

Gingrich is clinging to a narrow 22% to 21% edge over Paul, with Mitt Romney at 16%, Michele Bachmann at 11%, Rick Perry at 9%, Rick Santorum at 8%, Jon Huntsman at 5%, and Gary Johnson at 1%.

Gingrich has dropped 5 points in the last week and he's also seen a significant decline in his favorability numbers.

Republican-leaning independents are going to need some place to go if Gingrich -- or for that matter, Paul -- should manage to capture the GOP nom.

But all that's hardly actual third-party news.

The Green Party's leading candidates for president, Kent Mesplay and Jill Stein, held a debate in California two weeks ago. Stein will appear at the University of Wisconsin-Madison for a public interview with Matt Rothschild of The Progressive this Friday.

Harry Braun, running initially as a Democratic challenger to President Obama and now as an independent, has a campaign focusing on a democracy constitutional amendment that will in turn enable fossil and nuclear fuels to be replaced with wind and solar-based hydrogen systems "on a war-time speed" basis. He has a weekly radio show where he elaborates on these and other of his issues.

My thoughts on the ineptitude of continuing to support all of the candidates of the leftish member of the two-party duopoly were posted here last week. My argument in favor of third parties is: what have you got to lose? If you're a Republican and the party nominates someone you can't support, your vote for a third party candidate, be it Libertarian or Constitution or some other is a message to the GOP to shape up. Likewise -- and particularly since this is Texas, where your presidential vote isn't going to matter anyway -- you can send a message to the Democrats to get their shit together.

Go ahead and vote for the Republicans and/or Democrats (or Libs or Greens) down the ballot that you prefer. But until we get more choices everywhere, nothing meaningful is going to change.

Update: I wrote this post intending to include this news about Rocky Anderson.

A new political party has entered the fray as an alternative to Democrats and Republicans ahead of the 2012 elections. On Monday, former Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson announced he will run for president with the newly formed Justice Party. Although hailing from a solidly red state, Anderson has been known as one of the most progressive mayors of any major U.S. city in recent years. During his two mayoral terms from 2000 to 2008, Anderson was an outspoken champion of LGBT rights, environmental sustainability, and the antiwar movement in opposition to the Iraq War. Vowing to fight the influence of money over politics, Anderson kicked off his campaign on Monday with a pledge to limit individual donations to $100 a person. Anderson and the Justice Party say they hope to build a grassroots movement heading into the November 2012 elections. "We launched the Justice Party because the entire system is so corrupt," Anderson says. "It’s so diseased. We know that the public interest is not being served by anyone in the system right now, particularly the two dominant parties who have sustained this corrupt system and who are sustained by it."

Anti-incumbent fever sweeps out city hall

If voters were happy with (Houston's) mayor and current city council, they certainly didn't show it in runoff elections Saturday.

They threw out two incumbents by large margins and filled two other seats with men who had no government experience.

The results illustrate a continuation of a national trend of anger and frustration toward government during the worst economic stretch since the Great Depression, political observers said.

In short: Voters want change.

"A lot of people are angry at virtually all institutions and the government is high on their list," said Richard Murray, a political science professor at the University of Houston. "And these are the people in a low-turnout election that are most likely to show up because they are angry. They're agitated."

About 57,000 voters participated in the election, 6 percent of the 920,000 people registered to cast ballots in Houston.

Yeah, the 6% want change, all right, and they're turning out in record (low) numbers to elect the very worst people on the ballot. This crew has burned through several labels in the past few years -- angry white males, TeaBaggers -- but suffice it to say that they have more time on their hands than they do good sense.

And the lower the turnout, the more incumbents are endangered. Which is why the King Street/True the Vote vote-suppressing criminals are fully weaponized for 2012.

Councilwoman Jolanda Jones lost At-Large Position 5 by 8 percentage points, and councilwoman Brenda Stardig suffered a 10-point defeat in District A. In races to replace term-limited council members Jarvis Johnson and Sue Lovell, voters chose a restaurateur, Jerry Davis, over one of Johnson's aides, Alvin Byrd, and picked a pastor, Andrew Burks Jr., over a former state legislator, Kristi Thibaut. Davis will represent District B, Burks will take At-Large 2.

The results show clear opposition to the status quo, particularly following a general election in which Mayor Annise Parker and several council members narrowly avoided runoff elections, said Bob Stein, a political science professor at Rice University.

"It's a strong repudiation of this administration -- not just the mayor, but the council," Stein said.

District A, which elected the city's first TeaBagger, has a 57% Hispanic population. Barely any of which can vote, or bothered to. Byrd and Thibaut weren't incumbent office-holders but suffered the same fate as Jones and Stardig because they were perceived by the slight majority of the 6% as such.

Even without a 600,000-vote suppression tool like the TXGOP's Voter/Photo ID bill, 2012 is shaping up as an absolutely brutal year for incumbents of both parties, and that includes candidates who resemble incumbents by virtue of their prior proximity to the corridors of power.

As we wait for the court to give us some extended filing deadlines, that's something else to think about for those considering running for any office ... in any party.

Update: Charles disagrees. At least until he gets his numbers, anyway.

Occupy the Port of Houston today

On Monday, December 12, Occupy Houston will be joining our brothers and sisters in the Occupy movement around the United States in a coordinated action targeting the nation’s ports. This event is an expression of solidarity with the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) and West Coast truck drivers who have come under attack this year, as well as a statement against the multinational conglomerates and their relentless campaign to outsource American jobs and undermine our economy in the pursuit of ever-widening profit margins. We will be joined here in Houston by hundreds of Occupiers and concerned citizens from all over the state, including Austin, San Antonio, Dallas and Fort Worth.

12:00 PM:    Meet up at Tranquility Park

1:00 – 3:00 PM:  Rally at POH Offices. we will be protesting outside the security perimeter where the Port of Houston Authority’s executive  offices are located, 111 East Loop. (77029)

4:00 – 6:00 PM:  Main Street March. From Tranquility Park on down the length of downtown Main Street in a visible display of support for  the West Coast Port Shutdown effort and the American working class.

Here is an approximate breakdown of the day’s lineup:

12:00 PM    Meet up at Tranquility Park to get the caravan ready
12:30 PM    Make our way over to the POH executive offices
(111 E. Loop, map link)
1:00 PM       Gather up at the gate and start protesting
2:30 PM       Start heading back to the cars
3:00 PM      Get back to Tranquility Park
4:00 PM      Head out for “Main Street March” during rush hour
6:00 PM      Wrap up the march in time for dinner and the 7PM General Assembly

Occupy. Magnify. Amplify. Solidify.

Update: 19 20 arrested at Port of Houston

Update II:

"We are here in solidarity with the West Coast port shutdowns, but we're not here to shut down the port," said Amy Price, an Occupy Houston protester. "We don't want the Houston port workers to lose money. We just want to cause enough havoc to draw a spotlight on what's going on with our port. And the way to do that, we think, is civil disobedience."

The Weekly Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance hasn't really started its Xmas shopping yet as it brings you this week's roundup.

SCOTUS has issued a stay and scrambled the 2012 elections again. Off the Kuff tries to make sense of it.

BossKitty at TruthHugger notes that it's business as usual for Texas politicians to tilt the voter tables in their favor by gerrymandering: US Supreme Court May Like New Texas Gerrymandering.

Occupy went to Washington and comes to Houston on Monday, December 12. PDiddie at Brains and Eggs follows along.

WCNews at Eye On Williamson points out that there's a corporate hand up the back of many GOP legislators in Texas: Texas GOP legislators are corporate puppets.

At TexasKaos Libby Shaw explans how the GOP is killing the U.S. economy and the American dream.

Neil at Texas Liberal made one post and then another detailing the recent trip of Green Houston City Council candidate Amy Price to Washington with Occupy Houston.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme calls out the US Supreme Court for the corrupt hijacking of the Texas elections.

Sunday Funnies

Supreme clusterfudge

Only because I'm spending this weekend with my family am I substituting the 'candy' for the copulation. I expect to never again hear conservatives complain about "activist judges".

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear an emergency challenge by Texas Republicans to judge-drawn maps that would govern next year’s state and federal elections.

The justices (Friday night) temporarily blocked a lower court order that put the maps in place. The high court said it will hear the case on an expedited basis, with arguments Jan. 9.

I'm not going to interrupt any more of a wonderful weekend watching my lovely niece the advertising model marry the man of her dreams (the former and still-occasional fiddle player for Pat Green) thinking about the Supreme Court's patently ridiculous, precedent-setting decision to give Greg Abbott a hearing on the Texas GOP's law-breaking maps. I'll instead direct to those who have already expressed some measure of surprise and caution.

Michael Li: SCOTUS stays interim maps

It is unclear for the moment what this means for Texas elections. For now, there are no legally enforceable maps for state house, senate, or congressional districts, but filing for other races continues with a December 15 deadline. It’s not clear though whether the primary will be moved or will be bifurcated as the State of Texas has suggested.

It’s also unclear what this means for candidates who have filed for office or resigned from office in anticipation of filing. Will candidates be entitled to their filing fees back? Will candidates who resigned from office under ‘resign to run’ laws be entitled to rescind their decisions?

The order also leaves party organization somewhat in confusion since parties organize conventions and select national delegates by state senate districts or congressional districts.

The process of redrawing precinct boundaries also presumably has come to a halt. At the same time, the current precinct lines no longer can be used since the state has new state board of education districts and, in many counties, new county commission district lines- some of which split precincts. Should counties draw new precinct lines taking into account those new districts and seek preclearance of those lines? Will they have to do it all over again once the legislative and congressional maps come to rest?

So in other words, a practical mess whatever the merits of the case.

Li also links to SCOTUSblog (the best read of the potential implications) and Election Law Blog for additional legal reaction. Excerpt from ELB:

Given what the Court did, with no stated dissents, it is not clear why this had to wait until Friday at 7 pm eastern to issue.

More importantly, it is also not clear what is supposed to happen now in Texas.  What districts can be used, if the districts crafted by the three-judge court are now “stayed pending further order of this Court?”

Off the Kuff: SCOTUS issues a stay

I have no freaking clue what comes next. Dozens of candidates have filed for offices, many of them have already raised and spent money, and they may wind up not being eligible for the district they have chosen to run for.

Burnt Orange Report: US Supreme Court Stays Congressional, Legislative Maps

And by "Texas" in that last paragraph, the AP means Attorney General Greg Abbott and hyper-partisan Republicans, whose argument can be summed up as "Waaaaaah!! The San Antonio courts didn't disenfranchise enough Democrats minority, young, and poor people! Antonin Scalia, fix it!" 

Greg's Opinion: SCOTUS Stays

I’m a bit surprised that we still don’t have a sense of what this does to filing periods. I’m assuming that there has to be an open window for filing after the Supreme Court has anything to say, but it seems that we’re in enough of an unknown that there’s just no telling. It’s entirely conceivable that the SCOTUS could go through all of this exercise and not change a thing about the map. In theory that might seem to allow for March primaries, but the absentee ballots can’t be printed until things are finalized (another domino). But even if nothing changes, would there still be a re-filing period? Considering that Thursday is the deadline for filing, that may make for some very awkward and tough decisions.

Letters from Texas: What Friday night's SCOTUS TX redistricting ruling means

Most of all, however, I think that politicos of both Parties and all ilk should follow this one simple instruction: chill out. Without a doubt, lawyers and judges will soon be holding telephonic hearings, during which clarifications will be given, guidance be shared, and more will be revealed. Until then, there is simply nothing anyone can do besides enjoy their weekend.

I have substantial concerns, as the SCOTUS blog link intimates above, that this Court wishes to make some new law, which may include emasculating federal judge panels from correcting wrongs written by hyper-partisan state legislatures, and maybe even take a stab at killing the Voting Rights Act altogether.

But I'm taking Harold's advice. As Scarlett O'Hara said, "I'm not going to think about that today right now. If I do, I'll go crazy. I'll think about that tomorrow."

Update: From Republican attorney Robert Miller's blog ...

I believe it highly unlikely that the Supreme Court will simply affirm the interim maps after its January 9 oral arguments. At this point, it appears that a majority of the Supreme Court intends to invalidate some or all of the San Antonio court’s interim maps.

The Supreme Court may also examine whether Section 5 of the VRA remains constitutional. The State of Texas has hinted at possibly bringing a constitutional challenge to Section 5 on the grounds that it usurps Texas’ sovereignty over its election system. Many observers believe that a majority of the Supreme Court has been waiting for a case to declare Section 5 of the VRA unconstitutional, and this may be it.

Yep.

David Stern really is trying to kill the NBA

Light posting continuing through the weekend as niece's wedding and associated family celebrations culminate. -Ed.

This development yesterday stunned even me, and I'm not all that stunnable any more.

In a spectacular and unprecedented turn of events, the Rockets went from a massive overhaul of their roster to a mountain of wrecked plans.

The Rockets had reached agreement on a three-team deal to get center Pau Gasol from the Lakers, sending top scorers Kevin Martin and Luis Scola to the Hornets.

Hours later, the trade that the three teams involved considered a done deal and had been the key to the Rockets' plans was torn apart when the NBA stepped in and killed it.

The league rescinded the deal, then disputed reports that it acted because of objections by NBA owners to having the NBA-owned Hornets send star New Orleans guard Chris Paul to the Lakers.

I was prepared to be as disappointed about the trade's implications for the Rockets as I was about all of the Astros' offseason machinations (read this for some good news on that front) but for Stern to take an action like this is astounding. Stern is essentially the owner of the Hornets franchise since the league assumed control of the team following its financial difficulties (related to the city of New Orleans' own fate). Former NBA player Dell Demps runs the team day-to-day as GM, and a deal for the Hornet's star Paul has been developing ever since the atrocious owners' lockout of players finally ended.

It's not as if Stern came back from a weeks-long vacation after having forced the NBAPA to kneel before him and find that his fellow greed-consumed billionaires had made a mess in the kitchen. In fact, after showing the usual iron-will solidarity management always musters when their opponent is labor, a bunch of crybabies complained about the big, bad Lakers getting all the puzzle pieces, and Stern caved to them.

If a good trade is, as the cliché goes, one in which everyone wins, David Stern stepped in and with one overbearing, heavy-handed swipe, turned the Rockets’ three-team deal Thursday into one in which everyone loses. [...]

In a statement, league spokesmen explained that Stern stepped in because the NBA owns the Hornets and the NBA killed the deal “for basketball reasons.”

This was as opposed to the explanation absolutely everyone else believed, that league owners did not want the team they own to help the Lakers by sending them Chris Paul with Dwight Howard likely to follow. The explanation seemed even more ridiculous when Yahoo Sports got a hold of an email Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert sent to Stern. [...]

No matter what anyone thinks of how the deal would impact their team, killing it causes damage that starts with the trade and quickly spreads.

I'll let you click the links for the basketball implications. What I see is -- obviously -- more political.

David Stern got a lot of hosannahs from the exclusive club that employs him after he made the players knuckle under in the lockout. With some players going overseas -- and staying there, like Duke's Kyle Singler -- owners don't appear to see the long-term damage they did to their franchises in exchange for the short-term immediate profit. They are indeed counting on the fans to sulk and grumble for this season, maybe the next one, then forget all about the strife and come back, bringing their wallets with them.

While he may be right about that, the unintended consequence is that there will be a stronger market for professional basketball players outside the United States in the coming years. Purposely diminishing the value of the skill set in your labor force is a poor management strategy. Naturally Stern doesn't see it that way; he's got a gaggle of colicky one-tenth-of-one-percenters to coddle, after all. Damn the future, it's all about now. Sound like a familiar corporate refrain?

Rockets general manager Daryl Morey and the Lakers’ Mitch Kupchak spent countless hours hammering out the deal, as they and GMs around the league had been given the clear understanding that Demps was fully authorized to do his job with the only stipulation that he not exceed the luxury tax line.

They were also never told that they had to make a deal that would appeal not only to the teams involved, but to the commissioner.

While Stern is in no way qualified to judge the quality of players or trades, he ought to be able to do better than this as commissioner. Instead, he hammered the league’s credibility, actually living up to the sort of doubts that drive the conspiracy theorists.

One can assume that (Rockets owner) Leslie Alexander and (Lakers owner) Jim Buss have been calling Stern and hitting him as hard as he smashed their trade. But they are badly outnumbered. And as wrongfully as they must feel that their employee mistreated their teams, he did not do anywhere near the damage as to the team the NBA owns.

And not that he gives a shit, but there can't be a single NBA player sending Stern so much as moldy fruitcake for Christmas, much less a card.

It would serve him justly if all of the European stars the league has recruited and signed over the past few seasons eventually went back home. And took more Americans with them. Read more about Singler's decision to play in Spain long-term and the way the NBA's rookie salary cap affects late first- and early second-round draftees, and you can see where the owners have screwed the pooch.

Stern needs to organize a winter bowling league with Kirk Kerkorian and "Chainsaw Al" Dunlap so they can swap stories and laugh their asses off.

Because he seems to be worthless for anything else.

Update: Rejected Chris Paul Trade Prompts Expletive-Laden Tirade By Enraged NBA Executive

Some took it as proof the system, even after a five-month lockout, is still flawed, while others simply called the league a "complete joke."

But nobody has been as blunt as one anonymous NBA executive, who was quoted at length in a report on Yahoo! Sports.

"We were all told by the league he was a tradeable player, and now they're saying that [Hornets general manager Dell Demps] doesn't have the authority to make the trade?" the unnamed executive told Adrian Wojnarowski. "Now they're saying that Dell is an idiot, that he can't do his job. [Expletive] this whole thing.

"David's drunk on power, and he doesn't give a [expletive] about the players, and he doesn't give a [expletive] about the hundreds of hours the teams put in to make that deal."

Update II:

Multiple sources are reporting that the Chris Paul trade is not dead and still being worked on, as the NBA attempts to save face following Thursday's trade veto by David Stern.

Stern is going to try to get the Rockets to give the Hornets both Courtney Lee and Patrick Patterson in an attempt to sell that Lamar Odom's age made the original deal bad. It's absurd, but that's how they'll try to package it. How this ends is anybody's guess, but we're leaning toward Paul becoming a Laker through an altered trade of some type. Sadly, if the Lakers add anything else to this deal we'd veto it from their perspective and they will too. The only thing that is certain is that we're all dumber for having gone through this episode.

Occupy Congress today, Occupy the Gulf next Monday, Dec. 12

Stay afraid, Frank Luntz.

Just a day after 31 Occupy D.C. protesters were arrested after a clash with police in McPherson Square, a similar kind of demonstration is setting up camp on the National Mall. 

Hundreds are expected to converge in Washington for a "Take Back the Capitol." On Monday demonstrators including members of OurDC, the unemployed, faith leaders, labor unions and others set up what they called "The People's Camp."

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) visited the camp. Referring to the Capitol, which she said has become overrun by Tea Party members, she told a crowd it was "time to take back the 'People's House' for the people."

Andrew Duke (C), Chief of Staff to Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-TX, tells members of Good Jobs, Great Houston and other progressive groups "occupying" Hensarling's office that the Representative will not be able to meet with them in the Cannon House Office Building in Washington, DC, Dec. 6.

At the heart of the movement is a similar message to Occupy Wall Street. The group says it wants Congress and elected leaders to represent the 99 percent of every day Americans, instead of the wealthiest 1 percent.

Unlike the tent cities by the "Occupiers," those taking part in "Take Back the Capitol" will only work out of their units during the day. They plan to sleep in area churches at night.

The group has the following tentative plans for the week:

- Tuesday: Visit congressional offices
- Wednesday: Swarm lobbying offices on K Street
- Thursday: Speak-outs throughout the Capitol, national prayer vigil and a mass march on key congressional leaders
- Friday: Pack up and head home

Organizers say they will continue the movement at home, where they will continue to pressure their local lawmakers. 

Update: Neil has more, including an on-the scene-in-D.C. report from Houston city council candidate Amy Price.

Speaking of 'home':

In solidarity with Occupy Oakland, Occupy San Diego, Occupy LA, Occupy Portland, Occupy Tacoma, Occupy Seattle and other movements along the west coast of the United States that will shut down ports in their cities on December 12, the General Assembly of Dallas hereby declares:

On December 12, 2011, Occupy Dallas will assemble in Houston, TX.

The following message is from Occupy Oakland:

“On December 12, the occupy movements in different cities will stage mass mobilizations to march on the ports, create community pickets, and effectively shutdown the hubs of commerce, in the same fashion that Occupy Oakland shut down the Port of Oakland on November 2nd, the day of our general strike. The Oakland Port Shutdown was a historic and effective action, and the memory of that night on the port lives in the hearts of people across Oakland and around the country.”

In Houston, we will mobilize and stage a mass march by integrating Occupy Houston, Occupy Austin, Occupy San Marcos, Occupy San Antonio, Occupy Now and Occupy Texas.

We have made attempts at local demonstrations in an effort to spread awareness of the economic injustices affecting the 99%. These peaceful assemblies have been organized with the aim of petitioning our government for a redress of our grievances. On a national level, the response to our protest has often included excessive force and unnecessary violence perpetrated by police departments, with thousands of citizens unlawfully arrested.

Occupy Dallas would like to urge other movements in Texas and the surrounding states that wish to participate in the Occupy the Gulf Coast action to join with Occupy Houston before December 12.

Developing ...

Kristi Thibaut and Jolanda Jones for Houston City Council

A solid 14,000 Houstonians have voted early in person or by mail in the December 10 runoff election for Houston city council. My post isn't likely to move any molehills, much less mountains, with respect to turnout or endorsement influence. Here it is anyway.

Kristi Thibaut, At Large #2: Let's begin by pointing out that Thibaut's opponent, Pastor Andrew Burks, is not only following the Gene Locke "Republicans plus African Americans" electoral strategy but also has a few other, shall we say, non-traditional items in his background, including a second arrest for DWI in 2010. From the Chron's take on the race last week:

Andrew Burks Jr. is harder to pin down. He's a lifelong black Democrat who ran once for chairman of the county party, yet he scored an A on the Texas Conservative Review's questionnaire and had the publication's endorsement for the general election when there were 10 candidates in the running.

Burks is endorsed by the (Harris) county Republican Party. Despite a claim on his Web site that he is endorsed by a former At-Large 5 candidate Laurie Robinson, she said she has not endorsed him.

[...]

Burks said he cannot remember how many times he has run for office. Chronicle research indicates this is his 12th run for public office and his seventh for a council seat. He also has run for state representative, Congress, county school board and party chairman. Two years ago, he took incumbent Sue Lovell to a runoff. Lovell, who is term-limited, endorses Thibaut.

[...]

Burks was under house arrest for 40 days last year following his second DWI conviction. Burks said he had not been drinking nor driving, but that he had been prescribed improper medication at a Veterans Affairs facility, where he was in a parked car at the time of his arrest.

Charles expands:

As a point of comparison, here’s the 2009 runoff overview story. The reason Burks has been endorsed by the GOP despite his “lifelong Democrat” status is likely because he welcomed the endorsement of Steven Hotze in the 2009 runoff. There are plenty of reasons not to vote for Andrew Burks, but that one would be sufficient for me. Beyond that, I just don’t know what to make of the guy. Like Griff, the impression I get is of a guy who’s running to run, not because he has some idea of what he wants to do if he wins. His finance reports are a mess, and he says ridiculous things – in that 2009 story, he talks about a “conspiracy of silence” that he can’t articulate. None of this is to say that he can’t win – he can, and he might. I just don’t know what we’ll get if he does.

The reason Burks might win is that he's black, and because another African American, Jolanda Jones, is also in an At Large runoff. Burks and Jones are as far apart philosophically as Jones and her runoff opponent Jack Christie, but for some voters, sadly, that won't matter. Also driving African American voters to the polls on December 10 is a runoff in District B between Alvin Byrd and Jerry Davis, and Republicans are getting boosted by District A's runoff between far-right incumbent Brenda Stardig and her farthest-right challenger Helena Brown.

Neil has more on Burks' bald-faced duplicity.

It's embarrassing that Burks even made it into the runoff with so many other qualified candidates, including a more qualified African American woman, Roz Shorter. It will be even more embarrassing if he wins.

Thibaut, by contrast, is honest, hard-working, and progressive. She was my co-endorsement last month out of ten challengers for the seat. She deserves to be elected. Burks does not. Simple as that.

Jolanda Jones, At Large #5: Again, a simple choice made even easier by Christie's smear mailer, which arrived in my mailbox on the day after Thanksgiving and even quoted Texas Liberal's Neil Aquino from the post in which he endorsed Jones. Hard to twist someone's words any tighter than that. That's the Republican way, though.

My fear is that the fate of Jones and Thibaut are somewhat linked. Either Democrats and progressives will get themselves to the poll to vote for them, or they'll get overcome by guaranteed GOP turnout. As for Thibaut, there's a double negative: there won't be many tickets split Thibaut/Christie, but likely to be many that go Burks/Jones.

As in the general election, I can offer no endorsement in District B, and because the only Democrat running in District A did not make that runoff, I can easily decline choosing between Stardig and Brown ... unlike Mayor Parker.

Update: Bob Ryan, the sensible Republican who ran in AL#5 against Christie and Jones, endorses the councilwoman for re-election.

“While I may not agree with all of Councilmember Jones’ positions, she is one of the few at City Hall that will stand up for the downtrodden, even when it’s one against fourteen.”

Ryan and Chris Bell trump the hell out of Bill White and Peter Brown IMO.

The cowardice of the Texas Democratic Party (or how I turned Bluish-Green)

This is the post some of you have been asking me about. Casual political observers uninterested in the inside-baseball nature of internecine state party politics can skip to the end if you want the larger message.

Two weeks ago the Senate District Executive Committee of the Texas Democratic Party met in quarterly plenary session and cast some votes for resolutions to be placed on the March 2012 primary ballot. Those resolutions included the adoption of casino gambling in Texas (which was the only one the SDEC approved), support of marriage equality, abolishment of the death penalty, decriminalization of marijuana, and passage of the DREAM Act. You may read Karl-Thomas Musselman's live-blog of the session here for background and discussion prior to the voting. Most of you who have made it to this point are likely quite familiar with the proceedings, so I'll skip the details. As more backstory, I used to attend these meetings regularly and even live-blogged them myself a time or two before the rise of Twitter made such efforts obsolete. I long ago tired of the meetings, observing them as a glorified kaffeklatsche for retirees, sycophants, starfuckers, and budding politicos who were mostly uninterested in actually advancing Democratic policies or even helping Democrats get elected. It became apparent that election to the SDEC was more of a resume' enhancement or a legacy-burnishing or some similar ego stroke to the individual committee person; most of whom are in their dotage, some of the younger ones in a quest for actual political office.

That's not to say that the SDEC is entirely useless. Just mostly. What they are entirely is irrelevant (thanks for that observation to my friend Tom G).

A little historical digression is in order.

Feuding between the liberal and conservative wings of the Democratic Party is as old as the hills. It's why Strom Thurmond ran as a Dixiecrat for President in 1948. It's one of the reasons why John F. Kennedy came to Texas in November of 1963; to mitigate the quarreling between Gov. John Connally (another Democrat better remembered as a Republican these days) and Sen. Ralph Yarborough (an actual progressive). Many of these squabbles had their roots in civil rights. Here's an excerpt from Thurmond's Wiki page:

In 1948, President Harry S. Truman desegregated the U.S. Army, proposed the creation of a permanent Fair Employment Practices Commission, supported the elimination of state poll taxes, and supported drafting federal anti-lynching laws. Thurmond became a candidate for President of the United States on the third party ticket of the States' Rights Democratic Party (aka Dixiecrats). It split from the national Democrats over what was perceived as federal intervention in the segregation practices of the Southern states, which, among other issues, had largely disfranchised most blacks and many poor whites by constitutional amendments and electoral requirements from 1890 to 1910. Thurmond carried four states and received 39 electoral votes. One 1948 speech, met with cheers by supporters, included the following (audio at the link above):

I wanna tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there's not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the nigger race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches.

Continuing on the timeline and moving back to Texas, Yarborough -- the most progressive politician ever elected in Texas IMHO (RIP Jim Mattox and Oscar Mauzy and Ann Richards) -- was defeated by a conservative Democrat named Lloyd Bentsen in 1970. Bentsen a conservative, you say, with mouth agape?

The campaign came in the wake of Yarborough's politically hazardous votes in favor of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and his opposition to the Vietnam War. Bentsen made Yarborough's opposition to the war a major issue. His television advertising featured video images of rioting in the streets at the 1968 Democratic National Convention, implying that Yarborough was associated with the rioters. While this strategy was successful in defeating Yarborough, it caused long-term damage to Bentsen's relationship with liberals in his party.

Bentsen's campaign and his reputation as a conservative Democrat served to alienate him not only from supporters of Ralph Yarborough, but from prominent national liberals as well. Indeed, during the 1970 Senate race, the Keynesian economist John Kenneth Galbraith endorsed George H. W. Bush, arguing that if Bentsen were elected to the Senate, he would invariably become the face of a new, more conservative Texas Democratic Party and that the long-term interests of Texas liberalism demanded Bentsen's defeat. Nevertheless, later that year, Bentsen went on to win the general election when he was pitted against Congressman and future President George H. W. Bush. On election night, Bentsen beat Bush convincingly.

Closer to modern times, in 2006 and with a slate of populist statewide Democratic candidates almost unmatched in Texas Democratic Party history (mostly because none of the conservative, establishment Dems wanted to risk losing) a group of us like-minded progressives set out to transform the SDEC by electing some of our own and others screened by our group to the committee. That effort got sabotaged by several turncoats whom we supported. Yes, we progressives got played by a bunch of schemers who about-faced on their progressive not-so-bonafides. Among the evidence was their support for Boyd Richie, a small-town conservative as chairman of the TDP. And making sure he got re-elected in subsequent years and so on.

Not electing Glen Maxey TDP chair in 2006 was, in retrospect, another pivotal turning point missed; one more opportunity lost to move the TDP back from the right and more toward the left. To draw the distinction between the two parties clearly enough that the lowest of low-information voters could understand: that only one party was interested in helping the little guys and not the fat cats (or as we say today, the 99% and not the 1%, messaging the Occupy movement has helpfully provided).

Except that the Texas Democratic Party, as represented by the majority of the members of the SDEC, really aren't interested in doing that. Not if you're homosexual, or Latino, and rarely and only occasionally if you're African-American. Not so much if you oppose the death penalty, believe that marijuana should be decriminalized, or refuse to participate in the demonization of the economic refugees of our southern neighbor, or even enable their children to attend college as the residents of Texas and US citizens that they are.

The vast majority of the SDEC in short are moral cowards. They are too scared of Republican backlash against rural and conservative Democratic office-holders and candidates to stand up for the principles of social justice that the party platform has continually espoused. In other words they talk good and walk lousy.

When the game is on the line, the Texas Democratic Party's so-called leaders turn tail and run into the locker room to take a dump, missing the game-changing play on purpose. Because they are too afraid to risk losing, they keep losing. And they just don't seem to get that.

Now to be clear, it's easy to support progressive Democrats; I just organized a meeting yesterday in Houston for one. It's not so easy -- and growing increasingly difficult -- to support a party, and some of its candidates, who aren't.

This kind of institutionalized timidity just drives me farther and farther away from the Democratic Party as a 'member of the tribe'. Which is why it's a good thing there's a political party on the ballot in 2012 that stands for something and is willing to stand up for it when push comes to shove.

I encourage Texas progressives and independents who feel as disgusted with those Texas Democrats who refuse to go on record supporting progressive values to consider supporting a party and its candidates who will. Supporting Green Party candidates is, at this point, perhaps the last chance that progressives will ever have in order to get the Democratic Party's attention with respect to making progress in Texas. In the proper direction, not the right one.

Related reading:

jobsanger: Texas Democratic Leaders Vote to Have No Beliefs

Juanita Jean -- whose husband serves on the SDEC and voted in favor of all of the resolutions: The Resolutions (UPDATED) (REUPDATED)

Mean Rachel: What Texas Democrats Can Learn From Aaron Pena

Collin County Democratic Blog News: The Texas Democratic Party Needs a New Direction. Besides its other cogent observations and suggestions, this post has an excellent summary of the history of the conservatives in the Texas Democratic Party.