The Chron makes it 100% for the 1%er

From that perspective, there is something to be said for Lissa Squires' approach of taking the strongest position possible and unapologetically charging forward. But while her anti-corporate rhetoric may help rally the most liberal members of the Democratic base, it is neither a winning strategy nor the way to best represent Houston. But Squires' moderate Democrat opponent, James Cargas, seems excellently suited to reflect the district's energy industry. 

"Moderate" is the new word Cargas learned to describe himself the last couple of weeks, and the newspaper swallowed it whole.

Oh, they did pick one liberal female upstart candidate against the established "moderate" candidate... but then, Ms. Squiers' mother's name isn't Sheila Jackson Lee.

The paper's e-board is just doing the conservative thing here, though;  lining up behind pretty much every other establishment "moderate" in this race.The Chronicle has had some hilarious outcomes trying to pick winners in this cycle, so this endorsement might wind up as more a curse on the Cargas folks than the blessing they will be trumpeting.

Squiers led Cargas 40-34 at the end of the day in May, an upset all by itself. Runoffs, as we know, are all about getting out your vote, and with the other Blue Dog coming in third with 24% and promptly endorsing his canine brother, it remains to be seen if Cargas can get Phillip Andrews' supporters back to the polls.

To that end, Cargas has spent heavily on robocalling from Ohio and Florida outfits. Odd he couldn't hire a Houston or even Texas firm to do that, isn't it? In this respect he'll make a typical Congressman: spending other people's money out of state. But on the flip side of that, he's run over $5000 in ads in community newspapers. I should also mention that he's collected many donations from the elite class, including $500 from former city councilman and mayoral candidate Peter Schlumberger Brown. In my previous posting on his SEC filing I noted that most of his contributors have the letters CEO and M.D. and so forth behind their names.

This race is a classic 1% versus 99% showdown. The Corporate Democrat against the Community Democrat. One from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, one from the Republican wing. Progressive and Blue Dog.



But it's also about the Oil and Gas Man versus the Single Mom.

This self-proclaimed energy lawyer for the energy corridor refuses to get bogged down in partisan wedge issues, but instead emphasizes Houston's position as a national leader in the medical and energy industries.

In the midst of our natural gas boom, this founding member of the Oil Patch Democrats could be a strong voice for the Houston economy, showing that the oil and gas industry isn't merely a Republican institution, but a broad and important economic driver that deserves attention from the entire political spectrum.

And even if he doesn't win in the general election, putting forth a candidate like Cargas can remind voters in the district that there are plenty of Texas Democrats who support fracking, will bring federal grants to the Texas Medical Center, and put Houston before party.

Update: You see that part in the last paragraph about Texas Medical Center grants? The 7th CD does not contain the TMC. The interim maps, drawn by the court for this election, place it mostly in the 9th, with a sliver in the 2nd. That's just lame fact-checking. Saying Cargas is going to "bring federal grants" there has all the weight and significance of saying I'm going to be bringing federal grants there.

The Chronicle has humiliated themselves -- and completely devalued their endorsement process -- by transcribing the words Cargas said in the e-board meeting and publishing it as their endorsement.

I wonder how much he paid for that. I'll post a little more about the two Chronicle men who conducted this sham -- managing editor John Wilburn and writer/blogger/Tweeter Evan Mintz -- next week.

So let's summarize: if you support fracking, if you think Keystone XL is a good idea, if you think the oil and gas companies need to stay on the government teat -- maybe even suck a little harder -- hey, then CarGas is your boy.

Do you really think there will be any difference in a James Cargas policy on Metro and mass transit in Houston as opposed to the John Culberson policy?

I probably shouldn't remind you -- some people might consider it 'sniping' -- of the Watergate-style bumbling espionage, the foul dirty tricks, the battery-acid blog posts from the Cargas campaign's morbidly obese communications director -- as in paid, a measly $800 for the privilege -- and the sneering, contemptuous sense of entitlement James Cargas has repeatedly demonstrated toward the woman who dares challenge him for the primary nomination.

And Hector Carreno gets all offended when I call him a Republican. It's just laughable, isn't it?

The funniest thing was his "Formal Complaint" last week to HCDP chair Lane Lewis about the county party's facilities being used by Squiers for a planning meeting on how to beat Culberson. The Cargas campaign's godfather hilariously thought it was a strategy session against his client. If we needed another reminder that Carreno's reading comprehension was a little suspect, we got it.

(Aside to Hector: it's not bigotry to call you a poor practitioner of the English language. It is not lying to point out your associations with the wealthy, the powerful, the conservative, and the corrupt. Go cry into your $10,000-a-month Rolodex.)

Yes, I have made my position pretty clear in the race from the outset. Next week, and on through Tuesday evening the 31st, we'll find out what the people think. Whether the voters of CD07 want John Culberson Light, or a real, actual Democrat is still to be determined.

Yep, my mind was made up a long time ago. What about yours?

Mid-week Funnies

Because there will be too many by the time we get to Sunday.

Starring Bain as Bane. (What's the difference?)

Rush Limbaugh naturally observed the batty coincidence/conspiracy, and Rachel Maddow promptly mocked him right the fuck out about it. 

...Maddow contended that, sure, the villains in Batman were “pre-named decades in advance in anticipation of a 2012 presidential election in which one of the candidates would have a contested affiliation with a company named Bain.” The conspiracy is “deep” and has “a lot foresight,” she ridiculed, adding that, in that case, Gone With the Wind was an “early salvo of the clean energy movement.” [...] “The modern American Right is hermetically sealed in a media universe that lets in no natural light and no air,” she said. “They breathe in only their own exhalations.” And in that bubble, she asserted, they especially have an affinity for conspiracy theories.

Grand jurors speak out against David Medina

Modern political conservatism is and must have its foundation the absolute commitment to truth, integrity, and character exemplified in faithful adherence to Judeo-Christian principles as espoused in our U.S. Constitution regarding civil government. Any breakdown in the first set of qualities inevitably leads to corruption of the practice. In other words, character and morals will dictate performance and when the sword of justice is at stake, the character and morals must be unimpeachable.

That is the primary issue at hand in regards to Texas Supreme Court Justice David Medina. The issue is whether he is ethically and morally fit to sit on the highest court in Texas rendering judgments that impact millions of people after significant evidence of corrupt behavior that includes indictments by a grand jury, of which some members I know personally and trust implicitly.

I challenge any who would like to dismiss this documentary out of hand to set aside political allegiances and agendas for a few moments for the sake of watching and listening with an open mind. Being well familiar with this drama since the story of the fire at the Medina home first broke in the media setting off this chain of events, I believe there is ample reason to accept the credibility of the initial indictments. I was also one of the first to publicly call for Chuck Rosenthal’s resignation as Harris County District Attorney due to – ironically enough – clear moral and ethical failure that cast significant doubt on whether he had been or could be serving the public with integrity. The evident cronyism involved in the quashing of the indictments of the Medinas was glaring and troubling to say the least.

Go watch the video at the link above. Update: Via Voices Empower (which advocates for Medina's almost-equally-odious runoff opponent John Devine, FWIW), the YouTube...



As Charles also noted yesterday, Devine is no walk in the park himself, and the Texas Democratic Party failed to field a candidate for the race. That makes it all the more important for Texans of all political persuasions to consider voting for the Green, Charles Waterbury, in November.

To disclaim: the producer of the video, Truth in Politics, is a 501(c)(3) and does not support any candidate or receive funding from any party or candidate.

Justice David Medina is a man in need of transformation and redemption, but must first come face to face with the fact that he has violated the trust of the people and been proven unfit to sit on the highest bench of justice in this great state. We the people will be judged with him if we show contempt for bankruptcy of moral and ethics by those we place in positions of public trust.

Dave Welch
Houston, TX

(Dave Welch is founder and Executive Director of Houston Area Pastor Council and Texas Pastor Council, former National Field Director of Christian Coalition, former Executive Director of Vision America and his GOP credentials include being a delegate to three Republican National Conventions (from Washington State), eleven state conventions (WA and TX), fourteen county/district conventions (WA and TX) and was elected chairman of the Washington State delegation to the 1996 RNC in San Diego as well as having served as precinct chairman in WA and TX and the state Republican Executive Committee in WA.)

Ron Paul cast out of GOP convention. What's next?

Alas, it is finished.

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, the longtime Texas congressman who marshaled an American tea party movement, won't get to have a last word -- at least not at the GOP national convention next month.

His futile effort over the weekend to get enough delegate votes to secure a speaking spot at the convention marks the end of the road for the 76-year-old candidate who tried and failed three times to win the presidency, relying upon the unflappable courtesy of a career physician and the iron-clad commitment to a libertarian ideology that endeared him to young and old followers alike. 

So long, Dr. No. We hardly knew ye.

As for the nascent Paulista movement, though they will probably take their bongs and go home, there remain plenty of good Plan B options.

There's a fine Libertarian candidate, former NM Gov. Gary Johnson and his running mate, CA district judge Jim Gray. I wrote about them here. Particularly for the Weed Caucus, this ticket is very encouraging. Johnson makes Romney's path to Electoral College victory much more difficult throughout the Mountain West states, not just in New Mexico. Update: this poll, showing Johnson drawing 13% of the New Mexico vote, suggests the Libertarian is earning the support of Dem-leaning independents.

The Green Party has fielded two excellent progressive populists, Dr. Jill Stein and homeless advocate/activist Cheri Honkala. I have written a lot lately about them, and so has the Traditional Media over the past week. Their strongest platform is economic: the Green New Deal -- rebuilding the country's infrastructure, providing well-paying jobs and healthcare for Americans while dismantling the creeping corporatism in our government -- is a worthy goal for the benefit of the 99%.

And for the truly freak right, there's a nutjob Constitution Party candidate that makes the Teabags appear closer to the statistical mean in terms of sanity. Read this article to see why Virgil Goode will likely keep Romney out of the White House -- by tipping Virginia to the Ds, upsetting Karl Rove's strategy -- no matter what else may happen between now and November.

All those and potentially others will be on your ballot in the fall for people who seriously consider themselves not-Romneys and not-Obamas. Voting against some one or the other is no way to elect leaders to run this great nation. Voting for the "lesser of two evils" is still voting for 'evil'.

Texas won't be in play, electorally speaking, for the usual reason: low-information conservative lemmings who like to spend less than 5 minutes on their citizenship responsibility every four years by voting a straight R ticket.

Don't be that guy (or girl).

This advice is meant for a wider audience than just the Ron Paul folks: Democracy -- and our Republic -- is best served when people vote for candidates who come the closest to representing their views, be those views right or left, far right or far left. Voting for a Libertarian or a Green, or even a Constitutioner, sends the message to the Democrats and the Republicans that they cannot take your vote for granted.

Casting a mindless vote for the two-party duopoly instead of the best man or woman running -- and that includes races down your ballot -- is the only thing worse than not voting at all.

Update: The Libertarian Party, via e-mail to its supporters, emphasizes the 'golden opportunity NOW to bring Ron Paul supporters into the LP'.

The Weekly Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance wants you to know that it has never, ever worked for Bain Capital in any capacity -- and certainly not as president, CEO, chairman, or managing member from 1999 to 2002 -- as it brings you this week's blog roundup.

There will be no Medicaid expansion in Texas. Off the Kuff discusses why this is such a bad thing.  

BossKitty at TruthHugger knows that hate groups abound in Texas, but is very concerned about the recent developments demonstrating American undercurrents of hate threatening the First Lady.

Is the leading GOP US Senate candidate so far to the right that so-called moderate Republicans would cross over and vote for the Democratic candidate in November? That's what WCNews at Eye on Williamson tries to get to the bottom of, in "Would a Cruz win end the crossover myth?

At McBlogger, we discover Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson cribbing from Hank Gilbert, ca. 2006.

The NAACP's 2012 national convention, held in in Houston last week, was covered by PDiddie of Brains and Eggs, and reports from the the scene included Eric Holder's "poll taxes", Mitt Romney's boos, and Joe Biden's "character of (PBO's) convictions".

Neil at Texas Liberal read a recent Pulitzer Prize-nominated biography of Malcolm X as he enjoyed a milkshake.  There might be some things more All-American than Malcolm X and a milkshake -- but it is hard to imagine what those things might be.

Sunday Funnies

(click for bigger)

 

Green nominating convention today; Democracy Now interviews Stein

As the corporate media covers every move made by Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney and Democratic incumbent Barack Obama, (Democracy Now! goes) to Baltimore to cover the Green Party 2012 National Convention.

"We need big solutions, you know, not solutions around the margins. We really need to end unemployment. We need to put 25 million people back to work with good-paying jobs," says presumptive presidential nominee Dr. Jill Stein, who is running on a platform called "the Green New Deal" that emphasizes economic justice, tough financial regulation, the repeal of Citizens United and a transition to a "green economy."

The Green Party expects to be on the 2012 ballot in at least 45 states and plans to spend approximately $1 million on its campaign. Stein is the party’s first candidate to independently qualify for federal matching funds, a milestone for this 11-year-old third party. 

More here of Amy Goodman's interview with Stein and vice-presidential nominee Cheri Honkala. The Green Party's national convention will nominate its candidates in plenary session today. Update: Those proceedings can be viewed via livestream at this link.

Texas Photo ID law is on the chopping block

The state's argument for a voter ID law met with skepticism Friday from federal judges who questioned Texas attorneys about the lack of witnesses and the need to prove the law is fair to minority voters.

Attorneys for the state contend that the law, which would require government-issued photo identification for voters, would not disenfranchise minorities and is instead designed to address fraud. The Justice Department blocked the law from being implemented, ruling that its implications would disproportionately affect blacks and Hispanics.

District Judge Rosemary Collyer told Texas attorney John Highes on Friday that the state must prove the voting ID law adheres to the Voting Rights Act - a federal standard for Texas called pre-clearance. The statute is applied to 16 states with a history of discriminating against minority voters.

"Texas bears the burden here," Collyer said.

Collyer, the presiding judge of the three-member panel, is the lone Republican appointee. All of these signals suggest Photo ID is headed for the graveyard, and it will be next summer before the SCOTUS will be able to issue a ruling on appeal.

Of course, stranger decisions have been made by the Supreme Court...

But this law, at this point, isn't about suppressing votes for President. There is no chance Obama carries Texas no matter what some polls are saying right now. That's a mirage meant for disenchanted Democrats living on hope. (It can still be an effective enticement for GOTV efforts, however.)

If all those dead and Ill Eagle people had actually voted Democratic in years past like the conservative fever dream attests, you'd think Texas would have seen a single, solitary Democrat elected to statewide office in Texas the past 20 years. But noooo...

The long-term goal of this law is about suppressing votes down the ballot; state representatives, state senators, judgeships, the various county offices, etc. But wait; don't we already know that Republicans control the Texas legislature by nearly a super-majority in both chambers? Yes, we do.

So how many more electeds do they need to pass whatever they want? The answer is none, of course.

They already have complete control of the state government, and have for decades. This is about generational control. It's what Tom DeLay sacrificed himself for in 2004, what Karl Rove has spent his life working toward, and what Republicans have successfully exported from Texas all over the country -- Wisconsin, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Virginia, etc. It's what those pasty gangsters over at King Street/True (sic) the Vote live and breathe for.

See, the Republicans aren't satisfied with 75% control of Texas. They want it ALL. One hundred percent. They know -- hell, even Rove knows -- that eventually the Latino population will grow up and get out to the polls, and they have to get their agenda in place in a short time frame, relatively speaking, in order to cling to power for as long as they can.

Even as their base voters dwindle -- a few are transported to the cemetery every day -- they know they have no replacements. The GOP is not in growth mode; it's in survival mode. That's why they're so desperate, so frantic, so angry.

So the more people they can prevent from voting, the longer they stay in control.

They'll have to swallow this defeat and make hay out of it as they have the ACA and the Arizona immigration bill. They can put it to nefarious use; keep the rage ginned up, continue fomenting the fear and hate, and keep hoping for the best in November.

And they will keep doing everything they can to prevent people who don't look them and think like them from casting a ballot. By any means necessary.

Texas Medicaid expansion numbers mind-boggling

Emphasis is mine.

On the heels of Gov. Rick Perry's declaration that Texas will not expand Medicaid because it is too costly, his health and human services commissioner said Thursday that fully implementing health care reform would cost the state about $11 billion less over 10 years than previously estimated.

Executive Commissioner Thomas Suehs told a Texas House subcommittee that the new estimate is between $15 billion and $16 billion in state costs over a decade, compared to the previous estimate of $26 billion to $27 billion.

The state would get an additional $100.1 billion in federal money over that time, according to the Texas Health and Human Services Commission -- money that Suehs acknowledged would be attractive to local entities grappling with the cost of caring for the quarter of the state's population that currently is uninsured.

 "If I was a county hospital district, I would be knocking on your door saying we need to re-debate" Medicaid expansion, perhaps with a push for a local option, Suehs said. That idea, in which a local agency would deal directly with the federal government to expand Medicaid in its area, has been cited by Bexar County Judge Nelson Wolff. 

This is of course why Rick Perry WILL accept expansion of Medicaid, no matter what he says today. He and the Lege need that money to balance the next biennium's budget... and other future budgets.

They can whine all they want about "getting it crammed down their throats", but this is a good deal for the state and a better one for Texans, and even this worthless batch of Republicans isn't stupid enough to turn it down.

Biden at NAACP: "the character of his convictions"

He wasn't talking about Mitt Romney's, either.

Biden was relaxed and confident, completely at ease before the audience, a stark contrast to the Republican. He made a few of the by-now-expected Biden-esque malaprops; "it's good to be home", "You go home from the dance with the ones that brought you to the dance", and the like. Once he got on script he was fine, touching on alternative fuels, equal rights for women -- from pay to reproductive choice -- and advances in HIV treatment as compared to a disregard for science and education on the part of conservatives.

"A social policy that is a throwback to the '50's".

The topic of senior health care gave the vice-president the opportunity to rail against the attacks on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and employee pensions from the GOP. And of course the Affordable Care Act.

"We see a future..." ...where everyone has affordable health care, where everyone pays their fair share of taxes, where the wars come to an end and the troops come home. "Mitt Romney sees a very different future."

Biden pivoted nicely to the purpose of the venerable civil-rights organization: civil rights, particularly voting rights. He reminded the listeners that the House of Representatives had voted to block the Justice Department from even investigating allegations of voter suppression. He even rolled out a little Scripture at the end: "we are our brother's keeper".

It was convention-standard boilerplate for a home field crowd.

Biden's half-hour-long remarks were prefaced by a short video from the president, in which he declared that he stood "on the shoulders" of the NAACP and their long history of winning civil rights struggles.

No harsh words for the opposition, the requisite applause lines, some funny mash-ups but no actual miscues. SOP Joe Biden.

Update:

The Vice President’s speech was a veritable truckload of raw ribeye steaks for liberals, grilled to perfection by Biden’s easy, confident connection with the crowd, who responded with vigorous applause and frequent cries of agreement. Biden, himself, noted near the end, “This is preaching to the choir.”

And preach, he did, drawing disappointed boos when he foreshadowed the end of his speech, saying “Let me close, my friends,” then raising the specter of a Romney-appointed Supreme Court. “Folks, this election, in my view, is a fight for the heart and soul of America,” he said.

“These guys aren’t bad guys,” he continued, “they just have a fundamentally different view. The best way to sum up the President’s view, my view, and I think your view, is we see America where, in the words of the scripture, what you do unto the least of my brethren you do unto me.”

The crowd goes wild.

Stein picks Green running mate

On the day before the Green Party's presidential nominating convention, presidential candidate Jill Stein revealed her running mate to CBS News exclusively: homeless activist Cheri Honkala.

"She leads one of the country's largest multiracial, intergenerational movements led by people in poverty, fighting poverty, homelessness and foreclosures," Stein told CBS news. Honkala, a mother of two, and the national coordinator for the Poor People's Economic Human Rights Campaign, spent some of her days homeless. She ran for sheriff of Philadelphia on the Green Party line in 2011 and based her campaign on a platform of halting evictions.

Stein, who defeated comedian Roseanne Barr for the Green Party's nod, will be officially nominated at the party's national convention in Baltimore, which begins Thursday. Stein, a physician, is from Massachusetts and has launched two unsuccessful bids for governor there, including against Mitt Romney in 2002.

Stein spoke to CBS News this week in advance of her nomination...

Read the interview here.

Update: The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal have more. Here also is video of the announcement.

Romney at NAACP: milquetoast

"I believe that if you understood who I truly am in my heart, and if it were possible to fully communicate what I believe is in the real, enduring best interest of African-American families, you would vote for me for president," he said. "I want you to know that if I did not believe that my policies and my leadership would help families of color -- and families of any color -- more than the policies and leadership of President Obama, I would not be running for president."

His audience greeted him with respectful, if not enthusiastic applause, and applauded occasionally at points throughout the speech –- until he said he would eliminate ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court two weeks ago. The audience responded with thundering boos. His listeners also booed a few minutes later when he said he would be a more responsive president to the African-American community than the current occupant of the White House.

Additional excerpts here.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

This was a fair yet slightly pleading appeal. Romney displayed a little more than his usual angst before an audience that demonstrated both polite respect and strong opposition when they disagreed.

I don't think he scored any points with anyone who hasn't already bought what he's selling. And scant few of those people were in the GRB this morning.

Mission not quite accomplished, but he gets an E for effort.

Update: From Mediaite...

“I have no hidden agenda. I submit to you that if you want a president who will make things better in the African American community, you are looking at him,” which was met with a mixture of polite applause and jeering. Romney soaked it in awkwardly for a few seconds, then said, with a game nod, “You take a look!”

All things considered, the speech could have gone a lot worse. Aside from this moment and his promise to end Obamacare, the speech was at least politely received, and the crowd didn’t even seem to mind when Romney took a backhanded shot at President Obama for sending Vice President Joe Biden (who speaks to the convention Thursday) instead of attending himself, saying that “if I am elected president, and you invite me to next year’s convention, I would count it as a privilege, and my answer will be yes.”

The speech was never likely to earn him many, if any, black votes, but the sections where he was booed were somewhat to be expected, and reinforce Romney’s position with voters who agree with him on health care reform, and who are leaning away from the President. The rest of the speech was vague enough to avoid drawing any more negative reactions.