Sunday Funnies

Fox covers up Corker's tactics in celebrating UAW loss

Millions of Texas voters, mostly Ds, are MIA

Ross Ramsey, talking about things some people are painfully aware of.

The biggest chunk of the state’s growth can be attributed to an increase in the minority populations, and the biggest part of that growth has been Hispanic. And that is where the hype about politics revs up: To the extent that they vote, minorities in Texas tend to vote for Democrats more than Republicans. If the number of minorities rise along with the population, and if those new voters behave like their voting counterparts, then the electorate should grow to favor the Democrats.

That was the idea behind the Democrats’ “dream team” ticket in 2002, which included a couple of big-city mayors, Ron Kirk and Kirk Watson; a wealthy Hispanic oilman, Tony Sanchez Jr.; and a mix of proven veterans and promising prospects. It didn’t work, but there were some hopeful years, when Democrats in the Legislature made gains.

Then the 2008 presidential race arrived. The Democratic primary that year had 2,874,986 Texas voters. Most of the time, presidential contests are all but settled by the time the campaigns reach Texas. But in 2008, neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton had clinched the nomination, and their battle over Texas lifted turnout considerably. The excitement over a contested national race even helped increase Republican turnout that year.

The Republicans held their numbers, turning out about the same number of voters in each of the two primaries that followed, but many of the Democratic primary voters who came out in 2008 never returned. In 2010, only 680,548 Texans voted in the Democratic primary. Two years after that, only 590,164 voted. In general elections, their top-line numbers also fell. Obama received 43.7 percent of the overall vote in the 2008 general election. Former Mayor Bill White of Houston got 42.3 percent in 2010 in a race for governor, and Paul Sadler lost the U.S. Senate election to Ted Cruz with 40.6 percent.

The population may be booming, but the electorate is not, and the Democratic electorate got smaller.

These figures have been previously identified; there is a large number of Texans who are citizens and are of voting age -- between 2.5 and 3 million -- that are not registered to vote.  Those are the prime targets for Battleground Texas.

But there are some eight million Texans registered to vote who did not do so in 2012.  They might not all be Democrats, but you can rest assured that a large majority of them are.  And that is precisely where the turning of Texas to a purplish shade of blue rests.

Republicans are confident their firewall can prevent that from happening.  Between the biweekly stoking of Tea Party outrage to the efforts, legal and extralegal, to keep potential Democratic voters from doing so (photo ID requirements and thug tactics practiced by the King Street Patriot/True the Vote pale mafia), the job lies with the Texas Democratic Party, their candidates, activists, and assorted supporters to make the case for change.  To persuade those millions of Texans who have no habit of regularly performing their civic function -- of participating in the selection of the leaders of the state -- into those that do.  Here's some Census statistics from a worthwhile article by Patti Hart, in the Chron...

46.3 percent of Texans earning more than $75,000 voted in 2010, compared to 26.7 percent of those earning less than $35,000 

52.4 percent of Texans with college degrees voted, compared to 22.8 percent with less than a high school diploma 

16 percent of Texans under 30 voted, while 42.7 percent of the over-30 crowd participated 

43.8 percent of white Texans voted in 2010, compared with 38.7% of African Americans and 23.1% of Hispanics

That task makes turning a battleship around look like a walk in the park.  Back to Ramsey...

The Republicans have more money, and their steady, habitual turnout has given them a list of stalwarts who vote no matter what. The Democrats have a list of stalwarts, too, but it is considerably smaller.

So they are looking for first-timers, people who haven’t voted before because they just moved here or just recently came of age or haven’t been involved in elections before and are just waiting for someone to ask them.

And there is the other group, the 2.2 million Texans who turned out in March 2008 and haven’t been seen in a primary location since then. The Democrats already have their names, if not their votes.

GOTV is a door to door, block to block effort.  Turning out one's precinct means visiting your neighbor, calling them on the phone, or mailing them a postcard.  We'll get a glimpse, beginning next week as early voting for the March primaries gets under way, as to whether Battleground Texas' initial efforts are bearing some fruit.

Eye on Williamson has more detail, and links to other analysis.

My Funny Valentine

Davis moves back to the left

Let's give Senator Davis the hap tip she deserves for doing the right things this week.  First on weed...

Texas Democratic gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis said she supports medical marijuana use as well easing the state's legal consequences for possessing small amounts of the drug.

Davis' comments echo those of current Republican Gov. Rick Perry, who said he supports less stringent penalties in Texas for marijuana use. 

She moved (relatively) quickly here, to draft off Governor Goodhair's surprising shift, and left Greg Abbott sitting way over there on the right.  The Dallas News ed board broke it, so let's tap their analysis.

This takes the decriminalization discussion beyond where Perry took it, and Davis showed little hesitation. In his recent remarks in Davos, Perry talked about moving “toward a decriminalization,” whereas Davis said she’d consider signing a bill removing criminal provisions for possessing small amounts. That would be de facto decriminalization if Texas made small-time possession a civil matter.

Pre-Davos, I doubt Davis would have been as willing to address this head on. But Perry provided safe harbor to Davis or anyone else who wanted to go there. Plus, a statewide poll last year showed voting Texans are open to change on the pot question.

Davis probably picks up more votes that she loses on this. Those general election voter who are motivated by law-and-order issues aren’t getting near her anyway. Those persuadable middle-spectrum voters who could tilt either way have an important issue to consider here.

Davis, to them, might seem more in touch with a national sense that the war on drugs is so Richard Nixon. Our editorial page has said we appear to have reached a national tipping point.

Sticking by the status quo on drugs would make Abbott seem decidedly retrograde. Then again, his handlers seem to be looking for a very safe course so far. Abbott certainly isn’t coming off as a man of new or great vision, lest it’s Rick Perry’s vision. If he thinks that’s a formula for victory in 2014, we’ll see.

That's a solid take all around.  Kudos to Davis for pouncing on an opportunity left open by Rick Perry, of all people.  And secondly, she comes correct on marriage equality.  Lone Star Q:

In her first public statements in support of same-sex marriage since announcing her campaign for governor, Democrat Wendy Davis called on likely Republican opponent Greg Abbott to stop defending the state’s marriage bans in court.

Davis’ statements came a day after a federal district judge in San Antonio heard arguments in a lawsuit challenging Texas’ marriage bans, including its 2005 constitutional amendment.

Davis, D-Fort Worth, is a strong LGBT ally who has co-authored bills to ban anti-LGBT employment discrimination and bullying during her time in the Legislature. Davis is backed in her run for governor by LGBT groups including Equality Texas and the Human Rights Campaign.

But Davis’ statements to the San Antonio Express-News editorial board on Thursday marked her most public and emphatic endorsements of marriage equality in her 15-year political career.

“It’s my strong belief that when people love each other and are desirous of creating a committed relationship with each other that they should be allowed to marry, regardless of their sexual orientation,” Davis said.

She could have done this much sooner and saved herself a minor amount of grief over it, but getting to the right place (even if it is tardy, like Barack Obama) is still worth commending.

Decriminalizing pot and legalizing gay marriage are the two fastest-moving American taboos that are turning into mores.  Davis put herself on the good side of history -- and the electorate -- by endorsing this social progress.  Open carry is going to remain an unnecessary drag to her base, and nothing she said a couple of days ago on reproductive choice seems to have been beneficial, but if she can string together a few good days like yesterday (particularly with the media, which may wish to overcompensate for the unnecessary roughness with which 2014 opened), she will have the fence-mending under way.

Socratic Gadfly remains skeptical.  That's healthy enough; I'm sticking with 'she finished the week better than she began it'.

I'm just wondering what offensive Tweets and quotes are going to erupt out of this sad gathering of freaks next week.

Ted Cruz puts out a hit on Mitch McConnell

Our junior senator is going to remake things in his own image, and nobody -- but nobody -- is going to stand in his way.

The tea party is teeing off on Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell.

Matt Bevin, who is challenging McConnell in the GOP primary in Kentucky, seized on the senator's vote Wednesday to move ahead on legislation to increase the nation's debt limit, describing it as a blank check for President Barack Obama. The tea party-backed businessman and conservative groups signaled they won't let Senate Republican incumbents forget the vote this election year.

"Kentucky and America can literally no longer afford such financially reckless behavior from the likes of Mitch McConnell," Bevin said in a statement.

Minority Mitch may not survive his primary, let alone November. 

Setting the vote in motion was one of McConnell's Republican colleagues — Texan Ted Cruz, the tea party darling who has caused heartburn for his GOP colleagues in his year in the Senate.

Cruz insisted on a 60-vote threshold for the Senate to proceed to must-pass legislation to allow the government to borrow money to pay its bills. House and Senate Republicans had decided against another round of brinkmanship and let it be known that they were ready to let Democrats deliver the votes on the debt bill after the House had passed it Tuesday.

Not Cruz, who along with Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, precipitated the 16-day government shutdown last October over their demands that Obama gut his health care law.

This is Brutus and Cassius at work against Caesar.

Instead of going along with a simple majority vote, Cruz showed no mercy in forcing Republican leaders to cast a tough vote to clear a filibuster hurdle, exposing them to widespread criticism from primary challengers and outside groups.

After what seemed like an eternity, a grim-faced McConnell finally voted yes. An equally grim-faced Sen. John Cornyn, the party's No. 2 leader and Cruz's Texas colleague, changed his vote from no to yes. Sen. John McCain rallied other Republicans to vote yes, providing a show of political support for the leaders. The 67-31 tally advanced the bill to a final vote.

In that vote, no Republican supported lifting the Treasury's borrowing authority. The bill passed on a party-line 55-43 vote, moving on to Obama.

Cornyn, the Senate's likely minority leader after McConnell is disposed of, has to see the writing on the wall.  With a safe primary to skate through and an ever safer fall election, Corndog's biggest problem next year will be "Norovirus" Cruz.

Pressed after the votes about what he made his leaders do, Cruz was unapologetic.

"It should have been a very easy vote," he told reporters. "In my view, every Senate Republican should have stood together." Whether McConnell remains the leader, Cruz said it "is ultimately a decision ... for the voters in Kentucky."

Either the rest of the Senate's Republicans are going to find a way to take him down, or else Poop Cruz is sailing all the way to the top.  Of the dung heap.

He's making far too many enemies to go any higher than that.

Update:  You are what you eat, GOP.

I can't figure out what she's saying, either

Did she fall into a trap?

This week, Texas gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis delighted her detractors and confounded her pro-choice supporters when she appeared to support the very same 20-week ban she spent 11 hours filibustering.

Davis’ remarks to the Dallas Morning News that she would have voted for a ban with a broader health exception than the one in force – i.e., not an actual reversal, though it wasn’t terribly clear – were promptly represented as “flip flopping.” More accurately, they represent Davis falling into a trap set for her by abortion opponents, a place of awkward hairsplitting on unpopular later abortions.

 Is she reinforcing what she has previously stated?

Davis' statement comes as a shock, but perhaps that's because we weren't paying close enough attention. Though Davis' opponents prefer to characterize her filibuster as nothing more than a defense of later-term abortions, in truth the bill she stood against was mostly written to shut down access to safe first-trimester abortions. And her remarks this week are largely consistent with what she said during the filibuster, when she argued that the medical exceptions in the bill for later-term abortions were too narrow, replacing a doctor's judgment with that of nonexperts like judges.

Is she splitting hairs?

Abortion is a complicated issue, and one about which most Texans have complicated feelings. There has never been any real reason to think that Davis is enthusiastic about abortions, despite the fact that she was against a law that would restrict access to the procedure. The fact that she is so often accused of being a "cheerleader" for the procedure, in fact, proves nothing so much as the sanctimony, dishonesty, and occasional misogyny of her critics. [...] Think of Davis as a regular pro-choice person, rather than the abortion advocate her critics have tried to paint her as. From that perspective, the comments offered yesterday are an elaboration of her previously expressed opinions, rather than an attempt to distance herself from them. 

Is what she is saying making sense?

What Davis is saying about the nature of later abortions — the fact that they’re very rare, are typically necessary when serious health issues arise, and require consultation between women and their doctors — is all true. Those realities just aren’t compatible with a ban on the procedure.

From a policy position, Davis’ stance simply doesn’t make sense. If the goal is to “give enough deference” to women who are making complicated decisions about their reproductive health, and allow medical professionals to exercise their own judgment about their patients’ care without being hampered by the legislature, that’s directly undermined by the enactment of a ban. For proof, look no further than any abortion provider who practices in a state with abortion restrictions on the books. Every attempt to separate abortion from the rest of medical care, and use political language to describe the circumstances under which it may be performed, changes the way that doctors would have otherwise chosen to conduct their work. Even attempting to include exceptions for some women doesn’t actually work in practice.

All these translations are as all over the map as the candidate's own statements.  Every time she tries to clarify something, it gets muddier.

This is a campaign in complete disarray, and we've reached the point where that can no longer be blamed on the handlers and consultants.

Alameel, Fjetland, Scherr appear together in Houston next Monday

(Ed. note: Early Voting Ballot Board service to commence in short order, so posts will be lacking some of the usual strident advocacy.  Hopefully not boring.)

Three of the four Democratic candidates for the the US Senate will be in Houston next Monday, February 17, as the Meyerland Democratic Club hosts them for a question-and-answer forum. 

For some reason I'm thinking the fourth candidate is likely to make an uninvited appearance, as she did a few weeks ago in College Station.  I hope club president Art Pronin has a contingency plan in place for that.

As is typically the case, there will be dozens of Harris County Democratic hopefuls working the room, so this is a great opportunity to meet and greet several of the folks -- Congressionals, judicials, countywide offices, Austin representatives -- that will appear on the primary ballot.

-- Agriculture Commission candidate Hugh Fitzsimons is also in town tomorrow night at Hughes Hangar for a fundraiser.  The Chron has endorsed him, and he recently got favorably Politifact-checked with regard to the matriarchal society that is a bison herd.  Seriously.

-- MSNBC's Krystal Ball (a person, not a thing) has implored Hillary Clinton not to run for president.  Egberto Willies with more on that.

Nothing here has really changed in the past year.  If she runs, she wins.  If she picks a Texas Latino to run with, Texas turns blue in 2016 and never goes red again for a long, long time.

-- Ted Cruz is helping Democrats in Texas every time he opens his mouth.

On a conference call with reporters today, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) hinted that he may filibuster the House passed debt ceiling suspension in the Senate....

Cruz broke out the same rhetoric that he used before the government shutdown, and hinted at blocking the debt limit bill, “If you get outside Washington, D.C., this issue is practically a no-brainer. President Obama is asking Congress for a blank check. …Under no circumstances will I consent to the debt ceiling being raised with only a 50-vote threshold. I think Senate Republicans should stand united and insist upon a 60-vote threshold. And that is my intention.”

The 'stand united' language was the same point that he made before the government shutdown. 

He also launched the torpedo that sank immigration reform.  God bless that sorry bastard.  Run, Ted, run! (Warning: Breitbart.)

-- One funny thing and one serious thing to finish: Jon Stewart tore both Republicans and Democrats a new one last night on the failure of CIR (comprehensive immigration reform), and Robert Reich helpfully explains why so many people vote against their own economic self-interest: fear.

People are so desperate for jobs they don’t want to rock the boat. They don’t want rules and regulations enforced that might cost them their livelihoods. For them, a job is precious — sometimes even more precious than a safe workplace or safe drinking water.

This is especially true in poorer regions of the country like West Virginia and through much of the South and rural America — so-called “red” states where the old working class has been voting Republican. Guns, abortion, and race are part of the explanation. But don’t overlook economic anxieties that translate into a willingness to vote for whatever it is that industry wants. 

We see this again with Keystone XL as the unions line up behind it, mumbling "jobs".  There won't be any jobs to speak of, naturally.  After three decades of trickle-down economics, some people just can't wake up and smell the coffee.  The "job creators" aren't going to create any, because increasing demand for employees raises wages, and nobody in charge wants that.  Why do you think Republicans won't raise the minimum wage, for Pete's sake?  Because that would give poor people greater power over the lives.  And the corporatists certainly can't have that.

Update: As if on cue, here's the most recent example of the incrementalism Rall refers to in the lower left panel.

This is the same reason they oppose Obamacare, and try to twist the meaning of its implementation through the media.  Because, in addition to keeping the center of control in the hands of the corporations, these lies help them with the poor, scared rubes on Election Day.

A 30-second ad is the perfect vehicle for a visceral lie. It's a lot easier to scream "job killer" than it is to explain the CBO's carefully hedged nuances. Typically in politics, when you're explaining, you're losing.

And most importantly, the Republican lie is red meat for the ravenous conservative base that delights in hate-feasting on the health law. Those voters are conditioned to believe the worst; passion drives turnout, which means they're likely to dominate midterm balloting in November. They've already swallowed a slew of lies - from "death panels" to "rationed care" - so why would factual reality enlighten them now?

As my friend Neil says often, this stuff is all connected.

No Fags League?

Is that really where Roger Goodell, Jerry Jones, Bob McNair, et. al. want to be standing?

The best defensive player in college football's best conference only a third to fifth round NFL pick? Really? That is shocking, and I guess that other thing is, too.

Michael Sam would be the first openly gay player in the NFL; says he knows there will be problems... and they've already started.

Several NFL officials are telling Sports Illustrated it will hurt him on draft day because a gay player wouldn't be welcome in an NFL locker room. It would be uncomfortable, because that's a man's world.

There's no more prolific whisper network than the college of NFL scouts, coaches, owners, former players, etc.  The Brotherhood of Manly Men.  And the white noise is like a loud ringing in American society's ear right now. 

You beat a woman and drag her down a flight of stairs, pulling her hair out by the roots? You're the fourth guy taken in the NFL draft.

You kill people while driving drunk? That guy's welcome.

Players caught in hotel rooms with illegal drugs and prostitutes? We know they're welcome.

Players accused of rape and pay the woman to go away?  You lie to police trying to cover up a murder? We're comfortable with that.

You love another man? Well, now you've gone too far!

I'll add: you can run a 4.4 forty?  You can shut down your corner?  You got a 'high motor' and you're a 'character guy'?  Congratulations, son.  Welcome to the NFL.  Try to keep your nose clean, but don't worry too much if you can't.  Just don't ever lose that quick first step.

It wasn't that long ago when we were being told that black players couldn't play in "our" games because it would be "uncomfortable." And even when they finally could, it took several more years before a black man played quarterback. Because we weren't "comfortable" with that, either.

So many of the same people who used to make that argument (and the many who still do) are the same people who say government should stay out of our lives. But then want government in our bedrooms.

I've never understood how they feel "comfortable" laying claim to both sides of that argument.

Yeah, those poor Republican conservatives.  Always getting something they don't like "shoved down their throats".  This is going to be some fun to watch, as Michael Sam transforms into Jackie Robinson, and the taboos start crashing to the ground.  Lots of opportunities for satire.

Update: Astros pitcher Jarrod Cosart picked a bad day to Tweet about Justin Bieber.

Update II: Fifteen reasons why Michael Sam matters, and why football is ready for him, even if some in the NFL aren't quite.

In the final minutes of the Cotton Bowl, with Missouri clinging to a three point lead, their opponent, the Oklahoma State Cowboys, were driving deep into Tigers territory. A field goal would have tied it for the Cowboys, a touchdown would probably have won it. On third down, inside the thirty, the Cowboys quarterback dropped back to pass. Sam, in a wondrous combination of power and speed, shot past his blocker on the outside. As the quarterback was flushed from the pocket, Sam sacked him, knocking the ball loose. His teammate scooped it up and returned it for a touchdown. Sam’s play helped seal the victory, and it was obvious to anyone watching just what kind of player he was: a real man’s man.

No matter what happens next, Sam has proven what we already knew: that football, or any sport, isn’t somehow in itself hostile to the breadth of human sexuality. At Outsports, in a great behind-the-scenes explanation of how Sam’s announcement was planned and timed, Cyd Zeigler writes that Sam has no plans to become an activist anytime soon: “His role in the movement toward LGBT equality in sports will be simply playing the sport as an out gay man.” He’s done it before.

"When you're explaining, you're losing"

Could someone please text that to Matt Angle, stat?

Sen. Wendy Davis got some criticism from her own party when she came out for open carry of handguns, but she emphasized Monday there are some caveats in her position.

The Fort Worth Democrat said that entities including cities should be able to make their own decisions not only on any proposed open-carry law but on the existing law allowing licensed people to carry concealed handguns.

“Obviously in Texas we have a culture that respects the Second Amendment right and privilege of owning and carrying guns — but we also, of course, have respect and understand a the rights and privileges of property owners to make decisions about what’s right for them,” said Davis, who is expected to face Republican Attorney General Greg Abbott in the general-election in the race for governor.

“My position on open carry reflects my respect for both of those principles, and I believe that municipalities, school districts, hospitals, private property owners should be the ones that ultimately have a say as to whether this is right for them and their facilities,” she said.

Davis, pointing to her time as a city official, said, “My position on that is consistent both on open and concealed carry. I do believe that municipalities should be able to make that decision for themselves. I sat on the City Council in Fort Worth when that decision was made for us.

“I believe that local control means local control, and we should respect municipalities’ positions and opinions in these matters and we shouldn’t make the decision for them,” she said.

So then... everyone could have predicted this.

Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson, a Republican candidate for lieutenant governor who championed the concealed-carry law as a state senator, called Davis’ position “absurd.”

“It’s a constitutional right,” Patterson said. “There is no such thing as local control of constitutional rights.” State law spells out places at which handguns are barred.

And this.

Abbott spokesman Matt Hirsch said, “Greg Abbott believes that Texans’ constitutional rights don’t stop at the city limits.”

I suggested she just stop talking about guns.  But noooo...

That’s fine as it goes, but local gun carry restrictions are the precise thing the most passionate parts of the open carry movement are mobilizing against. Increasingly agitated open carry protesters aren’t looking for the right to carry guns openly in some places, they want that right in all places—so what, exactly, is the political utility of this argument? Who is it supposed to win over, and at what cost to the small number of Democrats in Texas for whom gun control is a primary issue?

It's just getting embarrassing for Davis at this point.  Don't know what else can be said.

Update: It's valuable to take note that at a moment when her opponent is stepping in rolling through his own crap, she is too busy explaining something else to hit back.

Texas Attorney General and Republican gubernatorial candidate Greg Abbott made no apologies Monday for his statements comparing public corruption on the border to conditions in third-world countries. Instead, he accused critics of his border policy of having their “heads in the sand,” and said such corruption isn't unique to the border.

In his brief campaign stop at a warehousing business that facilitates cross border commerce and trade, Abbott said that corruption is a problem statewide.

“It doesn’t matter where you are in the state of Texas, public corruption does mimic third-world” practices, he said. 

Who would know any better than Greg Abbott about widespread corruption throughout the state of Texas, after all?  Who besides the attorney general of Texas would be responsible over the past twelve years for doing something about it, if it were truly a concern of his?  It's not like he was busy suing Barack Obama for the fortieth time, was it?

Yes, Davis had this over the weekend, and thanks to Abbott doubling down on the stupid, she has another shot she can take tomorrow, or maybe the next day (this is what I meant back here about the lack of rapid response).  But please, Senator: no more about guns.

John Coby has your comic relief.

Update II: And Socratic Gadfly has some direct advice for the incognito Green gubernatorial candidate, Brandon Parmer, who is squandering his own opportunity at this moment.

The Weekly Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance is still learning the rules of team figure skating as it brings you this week's roundup.

Off the Kuff published interviews with US Senate candidates Mike Fjetland and Maxey Scherr.

Horwitz at Texpatriate expresses shock and anger over Wendy Davis' new positions on guns.

House Republican leadership finally announced last week that the chances for comprehensive immigration reform are "in serious jeopardy." But thanks to the great people at Houston Matters, Texas Leftist was able to discover that there was never a real chance to pass it in the first place. The only way it's going to happen is if Democrats take control the House and the Senate.

The news of the week was Wendy Davis coming out in favor of open carry, and PDiddie at Brains and Eggs fears that might be a fatal error.

Eye On Williamson observes that Texans and their families that are purposefully being left without health care because of a cruel right wing ideology: Perry and the Texas GOP Left Me Out.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme wants everyone to know that Greg Abbott insulted the entire Rio Grande Valley. Way to reach out, Bucko!

Neil at All People Have Value said Wendy Davis announcing support for open carry of guns, as in the times of Wyatt Earp, recalls for us all yet again that the work of freedom is up to each of us and not politicians. All People Have Value is part of NeilAquino.com.

=======================

And here are some posts of interest from other Texas blogs.

The Feminist Justice League does the math on the declining abortion rate nationally and in Texas.

The TSTA blog laments that self-styled education reformers are often part of the problem.

BOR highlights another example of the Texas Medical Association endorsing candidates that work against their own stated interests.

Texas Redistricting examines the components of Texas' population growth.

Grits for Breakfast cheers a report showing that Texas led the nation in exonerations in 2013.

Molly Cox details how the Affordable Care Act would have saved her a lot of trouble and worry if it had been the law when she first got sick.

Texas Vox notes the Texas House interim charges to watch.

PTA mom Kim Burkett informs teachers they've received a wake up call.

Cody Pogue gives his perspective on Wendy Davis and open carry.

Rand Paul gives clue to Harris GOP, but they may not be listening

Politico first.

Sen. Rand Paul on Saturday predicted that Texas would turn blue within a decade if the Republican Party doesn’t become more inclusive.

“What I do believe is Texas is going to be a Democrat state within 10 years if we don’t change,” Paul (R-Ky.), who grew up in Texas, said at a dinner held by the Harris County GOP. “That means we evolve, it doesn’t mean we give up on what we believe in, but it means we have to be a welcoming party.”

Paul, who is heavily weighing a presidential bid, noted that his assessment was shared by the chairman of the Republican Party of Texas. The Lone Star state, currently the largest Republican bastion in the country, is nearly 40 percent Hispanic — a demographic that has overwhelmingly supported Democrats in recent elections.

The senator, whose father was a longtime congressman from Texas, acknowledged that immigration reform is a “touchy” subject before offering his vision for people who want to come to the United States.

“We won’t all agree on it,” he said. “But I’ll tell you, what I will say and what I’ll continue to say, and it’s not an exact policy prescription … but if you want to work and you want a job and you want to be part of America, we’ll find a place for you.”

There was some quiet applause in the massive hotel ballroom, in which hundreds of Republicans — a mix of high-dollar donors, activists and state officials — were gathered. But Paul remarked that the response was “kind of tepid.”

There's all you need to know about how things are going for Jared Woodfill.  Scott Braddock's subhead: "Resistance to change bodes well for Woodfill's reelect"...

Against the backdrop of a fierce struggle for leadership of their party and a fundamental argument about which direction it should be led, the largest county GOP in America largely came together Saturday night in Houston for their annual Lincoln-Reagan Day Dinner. By any measure, the fundraiser itself was a success. It was a sellout which drew about 800 of the party faithful and netted about $200,000 for the Harris County GOP, organizers said.

But, there were several key moments scattered throughout the evening that embodied the larger internal struggle the Republican Party is having nationally to retain relevance and locally to do likewise.

The longtime Party Chairman, Jared Woodfill, faces his most serious challenge to date because some key Republican power players in Houston now believe it is time for a change. Dick Weekley, John O’Neil, and Harris County Judge Ed Emmett are among those who have now donated about $133,000 to Woodfill’s challenger, Paul Simpson. This of course is much more money than is usually seen in a local party chairman’s race. At last check Woodfill had about $10,000 on hand. “They’re spending all this money against me,” Woodfill said. “What does that tell you? That I’m effective and I’m doing things they don’t like.” 

I can't wait for Big Jolly's take and his photos from the event last night.  His latest seems a little... well, unenthusiastic about both the incumbent and his challenger, Simpson.  Greg seems conflicted as well; he doesn't have anything lately but this post a month ago reveals a preference (Simpson), as do his more recent comments posted to Jolly's blog.  But this from the blog's Facebook page reveals some measure of not receiving Sen. Paul's message.

Out of town, there's Laura Ingraham from the Sunday Talking heads this very morning.

Conservative radio host Laura Ingraham battled the rest of the Fox News Sunday panel over immigration, arguing that immigration reform and current enforcement of immigration laws were weakening the American workforce, even as her fellow panelists countered that reform would bolster the economy.

“I think what we’re seeing here is a split inside the Republican Party between two staunch conservatives,” host Chris Wallace said, going on to ply Ingraham with a Wall Street Journal editorial that called flinching on reform “de facto amnesty.”

“As far as I can tell, the Wall Street Journal is on the side of Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Barack Obama, Pat Leahy and La Raza,” Ingraham said. “I think they should put down their dogeared copy of Fountainhead and live in the real world…Do we care about American workers at all?”

“You’re the one who’s arguing the AFL-CIO argument,” Will said, noting that the “economic dynamism” aided by immigrants would help sustain the American workforce.

“So why have a border at all?” Ingraham said. “There is no will to enforce the border. There is no faith in this administration to do it. The Republican elites and the Democratic elites agree, and the people are revolting across this country.”

So Rand Paul is a Republican elitist, eh?

I'll keep watching these developments, and with plenty of popcorn on hand, but the Republican civil war just isn't claiming enough casualties fast enough to flip Texas in 2014, and that has nothing to do with Wendy Davis' identity crisis.  The path to 50%-plus-1 was almost too steep for her anyway, and that was before she started blasting shotgun holes in both running shoes.

There remain, however, good opportunities for a breakthrough elsewhere on the ballot.  Specifically in the lieutenant governor's race and the comptroller's contest, as Leticia Van de Putte ("Momma ain't happy") and Mike Collier ("accounting, not abortion") adeptly draw the proper distinctions between themselves and any one of the Republican reactionaries they are likely to  face in November.

That's how you run against the fruitcake conservatives, folks.

Update: More -- mostly skepticism -- from Booman and his commenters with regard to Texas turning blue any time soon. And Bay Area Houston and Juanita Jean pick at Woodfill's scabs.

Sunday Funnies