Ben Hall's bad week

The bad weeks are running together at this point.

Top mayoral challenger Ben Hall refused to attend a candidate screening with incumbent Annise Parker at the Houston Chronicle Friday afternoon, just 15 minutes before it was scheduled to start.

“The Chronicle has failed to provide unfiltered information or to inform the Houston electorate, instead serving as a megaphone for the interests of Ms. Parker and her cronies,” said Julia Smekalina, press secretary for the Ben Hall campaign. “This final refusal to accommodate increased transparency and access is further evidence of their loyalty to only a select few at City Hall.”

The release cited failed negotiations with the Chronicle to “open the screening process to the general public or members of the media. No allowance was made for the Hall campaign to film the meeting for distribution. Negotiations with the Chronicle ended in a disrespectful ‘No’ from their executive vice president.”

Disrespecting the Chronicle right back seems to be a big hit with Republicans.  They have been squawking since Labor Day about poor picked-on Hall and the mean old newspaper.  I'm sure there will be some reaction to yesterday's development from Jolly and the new and improved Khronically Obsessed in due time.  I'll update this post when it shows up.

But back to Ben Hall and his bad week.

In the final weeks before November's election, the only time top mayoral challenger Ben Hall appears in television ads could be in those crafted by the opposition.

After spending more than $1.3 million since July - most of it out of his own pocket - public records show that, as of Thursday, Hall had not purchased any more airtime leading up to the Nov. 5 vote.

"I don't understand why he's running at this point," said Bob Stein, Rice University political science professor. "Why announce a campaign months ago, put millions of your own money in, spend very early on, attack the mayor and build momentum only not to spend the money?"

Hall's campaign played down a report on KRIV (Channel 26) that the campaign did not plan to run any more television ads before the election.

That was the very last line in Fox26 reporter Greg Groogan's account.

(Political insider and UH professor Bob) Stein speculated that perhaps Hall's mediocre debate appearance, coupled with poll numbers that are not definitive about whether he has the support to make a runoff, have persuaded him not "to throw good money after bad."

[...]

Records of advertising purchases show Hall's campaign usually bought television spots in two-week chunks, often just before air times. Parker's campaign paid for slots as much as a month in advance, following what (Stein's colleague Brandon) Rottinghaus and Stein called conventional political wisdom.

Because the most critical days are those immediately before Election Day, they said candidates often purchase those dates early and work backward through the calendar.

The incumbent has scheduled hundreds of television spots on local and cable channels for the last three weeks, which Stein says gives her a definitive edge over her eight challengers.

I think this story must be an example of the Chronicle "bias" Hall -- and Big Jolly and Dr. Whited and those others -- constantly whine about.  Horrible, isn't it?  I wonder why they don't blame the local Fox affiliate for negative accounts of Hall's candidacy?

Update: It took all weekend and half of Monday, but there's finally a response from Jennings and Whited posted.  It's not as sputteringly indignant as I was expecting., so there's that...

I don't hold a high opinion of political consultants as you know, but I'm still on speaking terms with a few, and what they say is that Hall's campaign probably neglected to purchase his ad time "backwards" from Election Day months ago, as described above.  That's called incompetence, and wouldn't surprise me a bit based on what Hall's team has already demonstrated.

We might still see some TV ads and mailers from Hall, of course.  I just don't think it's going to make any difference in the outcome.  He's either going to make a runoff or he is not; that feels like a pure coin flip at this point.  And that could also change in these last few weeks, but any movement won't have anything to do with what Ben Hall does or doesn't do.

The mayor is still coasting to re-election, runoff or no.  As long as her team doesn't make a big mistake, this race is over.

Texpate was ahead of me on this and has a POV on the ed board boycott by Hall with which I completely agree.

FBI raids Houston nightclubs for underage sex slaves

There was a rally a couple of weeks ago to conclude a month-long awareness campaign at which notable local Democratic politicians -- Mayor Annise Parker, Council member Ellen Cohen, Harris County Education board member Diane Trautman -- called for an end to the scourge of human trafficking in Houston.

And this week, a raid on Telephone Road.

The FBI and other state and local law enforcement agencies raided clubs in the southeast Houston area on Thursday night.

The FBI agents and other law enforcement officials began serving search and arrest warrants about 6:30 p.m. at multiple nightclubs, including one in the 5600 block of Telephone Road.

Neighbors said they saw 20 or more clearly underage girls being led out of the Nuevo Amanecer nightclub after the raid.

Margarita Martinez said the girls -- who appeared no more than 12 or 13 -- were wearing miniskirts and high heels. "They could hardly walk," Martinez said. The girls were taken away by officials in a bus.

Agents at the scene wouldn't talk and local FBI officials said the details of the investigation remain sealed, but federal officials have made human trafficking a top priority.

So the reality is bad enough, but there's nothing so hideous that the Houston Chronicle's Khronically Konservative Kommenters can't make worse.

What's missing among the most vile of the reader remarks on that article is a "Let the market decide" whine.  And that's because even the Ayn Rand devotees know that there's a simple economic theorem at play here: supply and demand.

Just as there would be no supply of cheap immigrant labor if Republican business owners would not hire people for less than minimum wage, there would be no supply of underage girls as sex slaves if there weren't men lined up wanting to buy them.

In order to make themselves feel better (yet doing nothing) about this travesty, conservatives blame it on someone's else's race, culture, etc.  Yet, try as they might to convince themselves otherwise, not all of the men doing the buying are Mexican.  Not all of the girls being forced to sell themselves are, either. What the girls have in common is not their country of origin but their economic caste.

That's two inconvenient truths for libertarian-inclined Republicans. Here's a third.

Border guards, border walls, and bigoted rants aren't going to stop human trafficking.  They aren't even slowing it down.  But as long as conservatives have some poor brown people to blame for something evil -- and to justify their political beliefs -- that's good enough for them.

Sick of this racist, misogynist shit.

Dan Patrick attacks DREAMers even as RNC crows about Latino outreach

These is no discernible irony -- and no such thing as hypocrisy -- in the conservative hive mind.

The four leading GOP candidates for lieutenant governor want to overturn the state’s 2001 version of the DREAM Act, the Dallas Morning News reports. The position is sure to draw criticism from Latino politicians responsible for passing the law, even as the Republican party launches a seven-state outreach effort to boost its popularity among Latinos after Mitt Romney’s poor performance among Hispanics in the 2012 election.

Dan Patrick, a Republican state senator representing Houston, got the ball rolling this week with an ad trumpeting his opposition to illegal immigration.

“If Sam Houston, Travis, Bowie and Austin were here today, they would be proud of Texas, but they would be ashamed of Washington,” Patrick says in the ad. “Illegal immigration is Washington’s responsibility, but it’s our problem.”

You need to see it to believe it.



Patrick, campaigning like so many other Texas Republicans against Barack Obama in the GOP primary, is wrong again on the facts (or he is lying again, which is more likely).

Sam Houston, William Travis, James Bowie and Stephen Austin were part of a wave of Anglo-American immigrants to what was then northern Mexico in the early 19th century. Travis immigrated illegally, according to the Texas State Historical Association’s “Handbook of Texas.” Migrants from the United States wound up outnumbering Mexican nationals and wrested the territory from Mexican control, along with the support of several Tejano leaders, in the Texas Revolution in 1836.

The ad goes on to incorrectly say that he’s the “only candidate for lieutenant governor to oppose in-state tuition for illegal immigrants.” In fact, three of his Republican rivals -- Lt. Gov. David Dewhurt, Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson and Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples – also oppose the measure.

“It’s unfortunate seeing everybody clamor to see who can be the most extreme on that,” Art Martinez de Vara, a co-founder of the Texas Federal of Hispanic Republicans, told the Dallas Morning News. 

Todd Staples has the most to lose in this strategy, since he has an actual voting record that goes against Tea Party orthodoxy.  But really, who cares what any of these lunatics say or believe?  They're all as crazy as a quartet of shithouse rats.

Texas cannot stand to have even one of them anywhere near elective office in 2015.  The good news is that three of them won't.  And the last gaffe standing needs to be taken out by Leticia Van de Putte.

#GivetoWendy

Today Brains and Eggs is teaming up with over 30 blogs from all over Texas and across the country to urge readers to do one thing: Donate to Wendy Davis's campaign for Texas Governor. Why give to Wendy Davis? Because our kids deserve the best education possible, and our public schools and teachers need more funding to be competitive, not $5.4 billion in cuts. Because women are equal to men and Texas needs a governor who not only agrees but is willing to sign legislation that affirms this basic fact. Because as Wendy herself said, "quid pro quo has become the status quo," and Texans don't benefit when contracts, grants, and appointments are handed out as favors to donors. Because Texas can do better than being ranked near the bottom of high school graduation rates and near the top of cancer-causing pollutants in our water and air. If you donate to Wendy Davis, you give her the best opportunity to run a strong, hard campaign that has the resources she needs to win.   Make sure Wendy Davis has what she needs to run the best campaign possible. Give to Wendy Davis today.

Brains and Eggs will take a break from coverage of Texas politics to request one thing and one thing only: Give to Wendy. We're excited to be part of an effort that includes the following blogs: Ann Friedman * Behind Frenemy Lines * Brains and Eggs * Brittanie Shey * Burnt Orange Report * Concerned Citizens * DailyKos * Dos Centavos * Eclectablog * Egberto Willies * Eye on Williamson * Feminist Justice League * Feministing * Greg's Opinion * In The Pink * Jessica Luther * Juanita Jean's * Julie Gillis * Letters from Texas * Mean Rachel * Nerdy Feminist * Nonsequiteuse * Off the Kuff * Rude Pundit * Sensing Place * Texas Leftist * TexPatriate * The Oeditrix * The South Lawn * The Texas Monitor * Too Twisted for Color TV You can also follow the action on the Twitter hashtag #GiveToWendy . Here's a few excerpts from some of those linked so far... What does your gift mean to her campaign? Stability. Momentum. Energy. Stability, because money early in a campaign allows a candidate to build a team and work strategically to take advantage of every available opportunity. Momentum, because early money really is like yeast—it makes the dough rise. Energy, because early money tells the candidate that the grassroots are strong, which gives her the courage and credibility to stake out bold positions. In my almost-25 years in politics and government, I’ve never seen anything in Texas like the excitement for Wendy Davis. If this were shaping up to be a typical election, and Wendy Davis was shaping up to be typical Democratic nominee for Governor, I’d be ready to throw in the towel – Democrats would suffer the same typical result. But this isn’t the typical election. And Wendy Davis damn sure isn’t the typical candidate; she’s extraordinary. I worked with the Ann Richards campaign back in the day. Governor Richards finished with a ton of enthusiasm, but she didn’t have it from the starting gate like Wendy does. Indeed, she started out her race for Governor 27 percentage points down in the polls. Let me throw cold water on things: Wendy can’t do this. If you stand still and wait for her to win this election, you’ll be disappointed. The good news: we – together – can do this. Not just Wendy alone, but all of us. We all know -- yes, even Republicans, in the darkest place of their hardest hearts -- that Texans need Wendy Davis in the governor's mansion. We need to give her the resources she needs to run the best campaign possible. Please Give to Wendy Today. Update (10/13): Just wanted to shoot y'all a quick note of thanks for helping with our blograiser this week. We pulled in over $18K -- the ActBlue page raised $12,275 and the email DailyKos sent raised $5858 on a separate page. Plus, there were $185 in monthly recurring donations so that should bring in another $2000 or so over the course of the campaign, so all told we've collectively boosted Wendy's coffers by a potential $20K!! Wendy herself Tweeted her thanks this morning: Wow! Thank you to the TX bloggers and others who joined @BOR for #GiveToWendy. Because of your help we're off to a huge start! #TeamWendy — Wendy Davis (@WendyDavisTexas) October 13, 2013

The messiest democracy ever

Last night's debate among six of the contenders for Houston mayor was, in a word, brutal. Two of the most excruciating hours of the city of Houston's existence (including yours, mine, and ours). And that is not hyperbole.

My experience of last night's mayoral debate was to a) tune to Channel 8, and b) follow the Tweet stream of the hashtag #HouNews, switching over to #HouVote when that became the category of preference. I also began making notes as the questions began, but abandoned that within the first ten minutes and just let it all wash over me.

For the uninitiated: Following Twitter is analagous to drinking water out of a firehouse... except sometimes the hose turns into Niagara Falls, and you're at the bottom with the rocks and the broken pieces of barrel and dead fish.   It is difficult to endure the unemployed comedians, actual snark artists, and misspelled rants in order to find the occasional kernel of cogent observation during a live event at which you are not present.  It's all but impossible to process when six candidates, four questioners, and one moderator are talking in order while sixteen observers -- some of your friends, some acquaintances, some random strangers, and a couple of fringe freaks from the opposite side of the political spectrum as you -- are all talking on your digital screen, all at once.  But that's why I'm here: to make the sense of the nonsensical.

Except in this case, I can't.  And that's not Twitter's fault.

I began this election cycle as a fierce advocate for those candidates who won't get another chance to put themselves before the voters and present their ideas in a public forum (that more than fifty Houstonians will get off their couches and participate in).  After last night, it is obvious that in addition to the three or four candidates who could not be bothered to show up for the debate, there were some who simply should not have been allowed to enter the building.

And one of them was most certainly Eric Dick, the candidate currently leading the Houston Chronicle's online preference poll.

I'm not going to spare you any more agony.  You have to experience it for yourself.  Queue up the debate on video when the League of Women Voters or KUHT posts it in the coming days, then search Twitter for the hashtag #houvote and scroll down (backwards in time) to around 7 p.m on October 8, and then watch and read in chronological order, like I did, until the two hours is up... or you can't take any more.  Or you can just read this.

Houston Mayor Annise Parker defended her initiatives and deflected a bevy of criticisms from her challengers on the state of the city's roads, finances and public transportation on Tuesday night in the first and only televised debate of this year's mayoral contest.

Parker, vying for a third term, joined her top challenger Ben Hall and four lesser known and funded competitors for the two-hour forum-style debate aired on KUHT (Channel 8) and hosted by the League of Women Voters. Candidates answered dozens of questions about topics including crime, transportation, economic development and quality of life.

Candidates Eric Dick, Don Cook and Michael Fitzsimmons managed to "land some points" on some important issues that may chip away at Parker's substantial lead, said University of Houston political scientist Brandon Rottinghaus, but she is still the likely victor this fall.

Early voting in the Nov. 5 election begins in less than two weeks.

"Several of them I think took her to task on questions about Metro and fixing the streets, and I think that's something that Houstonians broadly could probably empathize with," Rottinghaus said. "But with that said, none of these criticisms really rose to the level of being a truly damaging issue for her."

My scorecard likewise had Parker winning because she made no mistakes (except for her seemingly ever-present contemptuous body language), and Keryl Douglas for being the most prepared among the challengers.  It's already the Year of the Woman, fellas.  Get your shit together.

Update: Besides those photos at the Chron, this one with the mayor, her chief strategist Sue Davis, and campaign manager Stuart Rosenberg celebrating her win with fried chicken from Frenchy's is something of an instant classic.

I doubt that a faceoff between Hall and Parker would have been -- make that "will be", since it's going to happen -- much more tolerable than last night's event.  Hall spending all his time blasting Parker while advocating ridiculous crap like Batcaves under the city filled with drinking water; Parker nonchalantly defending herself as casually as she swats flies while sitting on the porch.  See?  My blog post for that is already written.

For the future, let's consider a series of these in a format where three candidates are drawn at random, or even with the two leading candidates and one other, to "debate" for thirty minutes and then rotate in the others over two hours, or one hour over multiple evenings.  Maybe that would produce a more coherent policy discussion.

You just have to hold out some hope for something better than this.