And starring Clint Eastwood as Abe Simpson

It went from odd to surreal to hilarious to sad to just pathetic in ten minutes.

See, my Dad is Alzheimer's-ridden here at the end of his life, so I'm not given over to the great humor present in last night's talk by Mr. Gran Torino. I'll just point some of it out to the rest of you so that you can have a good time with it.

But this wasn't just funny. It was instructive of the quality of Mitt Romney's campaign. Just think of everything that had to happen to deliver us (last night)'s disaster:

• Republicans started buzzing about their "secret guest" on Monday, if not earlier. That means they had four days to help Clint write a speech and, you know, vet it. They didn't.


• They then spent four days building up the hype about their super duper awesome secret guest. A joke that it would be a zombie Reagan hologram soon got a life of its own, and rumors abounded that yes, it would be Reagan! But no matter what, Clint Eastwood was never going to live up to the hype. He's cool, but this is a political convention, not a Comedy Central roast. There was palpable letdown when he was announced.


• Did they read Clint Eastwood's latest hits? Pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, cut and ad celebrating the auto bailout for the Super Bowl, and someone quoted as saying he didn't believe in the modern Republican Party. So if nothing else, it provided snark fodder all day.


• Here's the big one -- the campaign obviously spent big bucks putting together a super effective and beautifully done biographical mini-documentary on Romney's early years. The guy has had a terrible job selling his personal story because he's got none. Some video director moved heaven and earth to make the guy seem almost compelling -- a great introduction to people who haven't been tuned in to the race until now. And ... they run it before the networks cut in. Sure, the folks at Fox and CSPAN saw it, but they already know whether they like Romney or not.


• No one felt compelled to lend Clint a comb?


• Bumping their pretty bio piece for Clint might have worked if the campaign knew what they were getting. He's a big star, a Hollywood legend. Convention ratings have been downright atrocious for this convention (40+ million saw Sarah Palin speak, 22 million saw Paul Ryan). Clearly, schedulers hoped that having a big time celebrity lead the coverage would keep people watching. But conventions are scripted for a reason. Or put another way, people aren't allowed to ad-lib because if they do ... well, you know.

At first, people tried to work out why the old mumbly guy was hearing voices in his head. But it wasn't his head, it was, uh the chair, which wasn't much better. But wait, this could turn out genuinely funny. It was, after all, Clinton Fucking Eastwood! So for about three minutes, it was debatable how things might turn out. But then it was no longer debatable, as minute after interminable minute passed no coherent point or end in sight and people remembered that Clint Fucking Eastwood isn't supposed to be funny! I mean, actual quote:

Do you just - you know - I know - people were wondering - you don’t - handle that OK.

Here's Politico's Tweet round-up.

Let me just say that this is very entertaining, but holy hell it is weird.— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) August 31, 2012

this is a disaster— Jon Ward (@jonward11) August 31, 2012

This alternates between brilliant and catastrophic train wreck.— Clara Jeffery (@ClaraJeffery) August 31, 2012

This is a perfect representation of the campaign: an old white man arguing with an imaginary Barack Obama.— Jamelle Bouie (@jbouie) August 31, 2012

And somehow he’s losing. RT @allisonkilkenny: This is utter insanity. CLINT EASTWOOD IS ARGUING WITH AN IMAGINARY OBAMA. #RNC— Jamison Foser (@jamisonfoser) August 31, 2012

A great actor and director isn’t doing much of either tonight. Needs a script badly.— Neil King (@NKingofDC) August 31, 2012

Facial expressions of many delegates at #RNC = bewilderment #GOP2012 #Eastwood— Luke Russert (@LukeRussert) August 31, 2012

It’s halftime in Clint Eastwood’s speech— Benjy Sarlin (@BenjySarlin) August 31, 2012

The Fact Checkers are going to completely ignore this one.— LOLGOP (@LOLGOP) August 31, 2012

This may be even worse than “Changeling.”— daveweigel (@daveweigel) August 31, 2012

Clint, my hero, is coming across as sad and pathetic. He didn’t need to do this to himself. It’s unworthy of him.— Roger Ebert (@ebertchicago) August 31, 2012

This seat’s taken. OFA.BO/c2gbfi, twitter.com/BarackObama/st…— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) August 31, 2012

Clint Eastwood on the phone with Obama now: “It all went according to plan,sir.” #RNC #GOP2012— Chris Rock (@chrisrockoz) August 31, 2012

That was…weird.— S.E. Cupp (@secupp) August 31, 2012

The speech even inspired at least three parody accounts:

Make me firewood. NOW. PLEASE.— ClintEastwood’sChair (@EastwoodChair) August 31, 2012

Okay, I’m sick of taking this sitting down— Clint’s Empty Chair (@ClintsChair) August 31, 2012

The GOP built me.— Invisible Obama (@InvisibleObama) August 31, 2012

I'm not going to embed the video; it's just too painful, in that side-splitting kinda way. One last bit of poetry, also from Twitter.

Yesterday, upon a chair
Clint met a man who wasn’t there
How sad it is that Rowdy Yates
Has ended up as Orly Taitz 

Abbott loses again.

Or as Gabriel Escobar at the Dallas News clarifies... the Lege gave him an "impossible burden" of a legal case.

The latest humiliation was inflicted today, when a three-judge panel decisively ruled that the Voter ID law in Texas violated Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

Like the decision on redistricting earlier in the week, there was nothing ambiguous about this latest ruling. Texas had the burden of proving that its Voter ID -- the most restrictive in the nation -- did not adversely impact minorities.

It’s one thing to lose, it’s another to be trounced. The judges concluded that all the evidence presented by Texas was some combination of  “invalid, irrelevant and unreliable.”

"So you're sayin' there's a chance..."

... the blame lies squarely with the GOP majority in the legislature because they came up with a law that stood no chance under the Voting Rights Act.

Toward the end of the opinion, one of the attorneys for Texas is quoted as saying that the state faced an “impossible burden.” No doubt this was a reference to Section 5 of the act, which we all know is the real target of Abbott and others in the GOP.

Justice David Tatel, writing for the three-judge panel, uses this plaintive cry from our attorney to slam our legislature. “Texas lawyers,” Tatel observes, “have only their client to blame.”

Gosh, I wish I had written this.

Indeed, several states have Voter ID laws that have survived legal challenges. The one passed and approved in Georgia is especially relevant because, like Texas, it needed preclearance under the Voting Rights Act.

Here’s the difference. Georgia’s law by design makes Voter ID accessible to those who lack a driver’s license and other acceptable means of identification. First, the ID is free. Second, a broad range of personal identification can get you one, including a student card and even a paycheck.

Texas, by comparison, is designed to exclude voters, particularly those who are poor.  If you don’t have a valid ID, it will cost you at least $22 to get one. The list of acceptable documents to obtain an official ID is the most stringent around.  Most significantly, state-issued Voter ID’s are only available at DPS offices. As the judges heard during the trial -- and helpfully cited in the opinion -- 81 counties in Texas have no DPS office and an additional 34 are open two days a week or less.

(Small government  at work, or hardly working).

The Texas legislature -- did I say it was dominated by the GOP? -- tabled or defeated amendments that would have greatly expanded access. A sign of how important this weighed on the case? All the measures are listed in the opinion. “Put another way,” Tatel concludes, “if counsel faced an ‘impossible burden,’ it was because of the law Texas enacted -- nothing more, nothing less.”

This court ruling is so devastating that the attorneys who lost the case would likely be fired immediately if they were privately employed. But they will of course toil on... on the public dole.

I am not certain that the lawyers who serve in -- as well as those who only give advice to -- the Republican party in the statehouse will make themselves heard in next year's legislative session. That's provided they have the fortitude to even suggest to the most intransigent among conservative lawmakers what it is about a Photo ID law that would pass legal muster.

I expect nothing more than continuing efforts to suppress and disenfranchise poor and minority voters. I believe the one thing Republicans understand is that they cannot win elections -- even in Texas -- without doing so.

Is Ted Cruz legitimately 'Hispanic'?

And more to the point: is that a fair or even respectable inquiry? The chairman of the Texas Democratic Party, who is of Mexican descent, apparently thinks so.

"This is a guy who didn't claim he was Hispanic any time before he won the primary," (Gilberto) Hinojosa said, adding that Cruz was born in Canada (although it is not a requirement to be born in the United States to run for U.S. Senate).

"He's half-Cuban, and he made point of saying he's half-Cuban and his mom was German-American, was born in Canada. Interesting for a 'birther' and a guy supported by 'birthers,'" Hinojosa said, referring to people who question whether President Obama was born in the United States.

The Cruz campaign has previously said Cruz's mother is actually Irish-Italian.

Hinojosa also criticized Cruz for not using his full name, and even questioning Cruz's heritage.

"If I was named 'Rafael Cruz,' I would be proud to use that name," Hinojosa said. "The guy has denied his own Hispanic heritage, if he is a Hispanic."

When asked if he really thinks Cruz is not Hispanic, Hinojosa said: "Well, I mean, you know you are what you believe you are, right?"

As the fight for Texas Hispanic voters literally gets into name-calling, Republicans at the convention say Latinos should like the GOP message of conservative family values, improving the economy, and creating jobs.

"Hispanic Texas, come home to your values and come home to the Republican Party," said State Rep. Aaron Pena (R-Edinburg). "We're all conservatives right now."

Hispanic voters, however, typically strongly favor Democrats, who point out that Cruz is against the DREAM Act and education cuts affecting Hispanic students.

To keep it that they way, they take issue with not only Cruz's positions, but of him as a person.

"It doesn't matter what your last name is," Hinojosa said. "It matters what you do for a community and what you believe in."

There was a time in the recent past when I would have favored this aggressive, no-holds-barred approach from my TDP chairman. But this seems too close to the "Obama is a Kenyan' stuff for my comfort.

I've been using 'Latino' instead of 'Hispanic' in my own efforts to reflect cultural sensitivity, as 'Hispanic' is regarded as a 1970-census-constructed label, which suggests a Caucasian origination. But this from the NYT usage and style blog demonstrates that there is some degree of division among the community itself.

Q. How do Hispanics themselves feel about the labels “Hispanic” and “Latino”?

A. The labels are not universally embraced by the community that has been labeled. A 2006 survey by the Pew Hispanic Center found that 48% of Latino adults generally describe themselves by their country of origin first; 26% generally use the terms Latino or Hispanic first; and 24% generally call themselves American on first reference. As for a preference between “Hispanic” and “Latino”, a 2008 Center survey found that 36% of respondents prefer the term “Hispanic,” 21% prefer the term “Latino” and the rest have no preference.

But back to the point: can a Mexican American properly accuse a half-Cuban born in Canada of not being Hispanic?

You may recall that I am married to a Cuban -- born in Cuba, and emigrated as a toddler, acquired her US citizenship the requisite seven years later -- so I have familiarity with the resentment some Latinos feel toward Cubans. I have observed this arises from two things:

1. Cubans don't ever call themselves Hispanic or Latino. They are Cuban. Period.

2. Cubans get much more preferential treatment by the US government as a result of the wet foot/dry foot immigration policy that has existed for decades. This generates the most contempt from other Latinos.

So once again, back to the question: is this, to paraphrase Todd Akin, legitimate? Or is it racist? Or something in between? Personally I lean toward the latter, but I'd like to hear what you have to say. Leave a response in the comments, please.

Update: To illustrate my disgust with this tactic, Romney surrogate John Sununu has repeatedly insinuated that Obama is un-American, yet he himself was born in Cuba, to a Palestinian father and a Salvadoran mother. As much as I believe in fighting fire with fire when it comes to Republican prevaricators, there are still some things that are out of bounds. This heritage smearing is one.

Texas redistricting violates VRA, is also discriminatory

Let's go first with the LSP.

After months of deliberation, a three-judge Federal District Court panel in Washington, DC has ruled that the redistricting maps adopted by the Texas Legislature last year violate the US Voting Rights Act. The Court determined that Texas Republican leaders enacted maps that reduced the opportunity for minority voters in Texas to elect their candidates of choice AND the Court ruled that the Legislature used a process that was intentionally discriminatory in adopting the Congressional and State Senate maps.

A copy of the Court’s decision can be seen here.

The election in November will proceed as scheduled under the court-drawn interim maps ordered earlier this year. However, the DC Court’s ruling means that the maps passed by the Legislature in 2011 cannot be used for any election going forward. The current court-drawn interim Congressional, State Senate and State House maps will serve as the benchmark for determining minority voter opportunity. In effect, if the Legislature chooses to redraw the three maps next year, they cannot revert to their previously enacted maps but must start over using the court-drawn interim maps as a baseline.

Matt Angle also added...

The Court’s decision is a damning indictment of Rick Perry and other Texas Republican leaders who, in a cynical attempt to hold on to power, engaged in intentional discrimination against Texas Latino and African American voters.

Every fair-minded Texan familiar with the details of redistricting knew Republican leaders were violating the law. Greg Abbott and Texas Republican will stop at nothing to hold power – even if it means spending millions in Texans hard-earned tax dollars to defend illegal discriminatory redistricting plans. I’m sure he’s burning up more tax dollars as we speak.

Yes, Abbott plans to appeal the case to the US Supreme Court... naturally. More analysis from Michael Li.

* Opinion appears to be a sweeping win for DOJ and groups opposing the state’s redistricting maps. Unanimous except (1) that Judge Griffith dissents with respect to finding of retrogression in treatment of CD-25 (the current Lloyd Doggett seat) and (2) that Judge Collyer did not join in the portion of the opinion relating to retrogression in the congressional map as a whole.

 * Court finds that the State of Texas failed to show an absence of discriminatory purpose in the redrawing of SD-10. The court, however, rejects the contention that SD-10 is an ability to elect district since Wendy Davis was the only minority-preferred candidate to win the district and “a single victory is not the more exacting evidence needed for a coalition district.” 

And it gets deeper in the legal weeds from there.

The SCOTUS won't rule on the case until next summer, and it's hard to guess whether the Lege takes this up again in January 2013. They probably can't get anything they want past the courts, and the only thing that is likely to change their tack is if a Justice Department has an attorney general appointed by a President Romney.

I wouldn't count on that.

Update: More from BOR and DBN. And this from Socratic Gadfly:

Beyond that, the loser is the Texas taxpayer, whom the Texas GOP falsely claims to love. Because of this ruling, if it stands, next year's Legislature will have to start over from ground zero. The interim maps cannot be used as a starting point. And, the GOP is probably likely to try to get away with something again, especially if Romney is elected. So, we'll waste more taxpayer money on more court battles, more state redistricting experts, etc.