A slow-motion self-destruction

And it's all of Greg Abbott's own doing.

The Wendy Davis campaign is slamming both Ted Nugent and Greg Abbott with a powerful new ad that features rape survivor Nicole Anderson.

“I am speaking out because it really bothered me for Greg Abbott to partner with Ted Nugent knowing his history of being a predator. I was at home. I heard about it on the news. It made me feel like the it minimized the fact that Ted Nugent is a predator. I think that it sends the wrong message that he partnered up with this man that is very vocal about liking underage girls. There’s something wrong with that. It’s not okay.”

This ad is important on a couple of different levels. First, it is telling the truth about Ted Nugent. These types of ads should make Republican candidates think twice before they decide to cozy up to, and appear with, a self admitted sexual predator.

Sex with a minor is a felony in Texas. A felony that Ted Nugent has admitted to committing -- frequently -- and is a crime for which there is no statute of limitations.  So why hasn't the top law enforcement officer in Texas prosecuted him for it?

It's probably too late for Abbott to apologize for palling around with a child predator.

Actually, Texans don’t need an apology. They need the top law enforcement officer in the state to do what he has sworn to do — investigate sexual predators, gather all evidence and hold offenders accountable.

Has Greg Abbott investigated Ted Nugent to determine if he has committed sexual acts with underage girls in Texas - a violation of state laws against indecency with a child?

If not, why not?

Perhaps Abbott should turn it over to a special prosecutor, like Terri Moore.

"There is no statute of limitations on second degree felony indecency with a child. If Ted Nugent has engaged in sex with underage girls in Texas at any time, he is subject to prosecution."

"If there has been no legal vetting of Ted Nugent, Texans have no assurance that Nugent has not abused young girls here in our state - a failure of Greg Abbott’s most fundamental duty as a law enforcement official."

"Ted Nugent's public admissions that he has engaged in sexual relations with young girls and had a strong attraction to them would automatically raise concerns with any competent prosecutor."

"If Ted Nugent had been convicted of the crimes he acknowledges, he would be required to register as a sex offender in our State."

Greg Abbott and his army have crossed the Rubicon.

The facts demand a thorough investigation.

THE LAW

-- Indecency with a child by contact is a 2nd degree felony offense in Texas with NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. Those convicted are subject to a punishment of no less than two and no more than twenty years in prison and a fine not to exceed $10,000.

THE EVIDENCE

-- Sufficient evidence exists - including his own videotaped statements - that Ted Nugent regularly engaged in sex with underage girls while touring the country. Musician Courtney Love has recounted that she was only twelve years old when Nugent coerced her to perform oral sex.

THE OPPORTUNITY

-- Ted Nugent currently lives in Texas and during the past three decades, he has appeared here in concert at least 29 times. Nugent has had countless opportunities to sexually abuse young girls in Texas, indulging his admitted compulsion for underage girls, something he has described as "beautiful."

THE RESOURCES

-- Greg Abbott brags that he oversees 160 law enforcement officers and a special Cyber Crimes Unit committed to tracking down and prosecuting child predators. There is no indication that any of these resources have been used to investigate Ted Nugent, a self-confessed sexual predator.

Without such an investigation, there is no way of knowing whether Nugent has violated state law — or still poses an ongoing threat to young girls in Texas.

You don't suppose that, if Greg Abbott keeps trying to ignore this, it might get worse for him... do you?  And not as in 'losing an election' worse, but 'being prosecuted yourself' worse?

Putting the wood to the TexTrib

James Moore isn't done beating Evan Smith and the Texas Tribune down, but here he turns the paddle over to the former Houston Chronicle writer R.G. Ratcliffe.  Yes, it's their polling.

During the course of my journalism career, I wrote about dozens – if not hundreds – of political surveys. The poll is to a political reporter what the tout sheet is to a horse-race junkie. From the perspective of having watched the sausage made, I can tell you all political polls have about them an element of voodoo.

But the opt-in Internet survey methodology used by the U.T. pollsters and the Texas Tribune may be one of the most black magic of all the polling methods. It essentially uses people who have volunteered to be surveyed and then uses statistical weighting to make the results match the expected voter turnout. (Click here to see About These Polls). It’s a survey methodology so suspect that news organizations such as The New York Times, The Washington Post and Roll Call magazine have refused to use it.

Ratcliffe discounts the effect of Nugentpalooza, which erupted after the poll was conducted.  I think that's a gloss-over, as the poll would thus only reflect the brouhaha over Wendy Davis' resume'.  But anyway...

The biggest problem with the U.T./Tribune poll was not when it was done but how it was done. The opt-in survey is fast and cheap and may only be more reliable than one of those television station click surveys because a trained professional political scientist is weighting the results.

(Click here to see the Sampling and Weighting Methodology for the February 2014 Texas Statewide Study. Keep in mind, they say there is a YouGov panel of 20,000 Texans registered, and 1,327 opted to take the survey and then they winnowed that down to 1,200 to create the final dataset. Here’s some key numbers to keep in mind, the Republican primary results were drawn from a panel of 543 voters while the Democratic primary numbers were drawn from a panel of 381.

I'm one of those YouGov surveys.  Actually I am two of them, as I have two separate e-mails and accounts with YouGov.  (But they might have, as Ratcliffe indicates, screened me out.)  You can finish reading the rest of that piece as Ratcliffe dissects the polling methodology and assembles a list of  the various media who refuse to use anything similar.

Let's move on to Carl Lindemann's Inanity of Sanity, where he destroys the whole "donation media" model, particularly as practiced by the TexTrib, PBS (Part II) and NPR (Part I).

Is this entertainment or infotainment? Does this really rate as public journalism serving the PUBLIC INTEREST? Or is PBS, as David Sirota recently wrote, "becoming the "Plutocrats Broadcasting Service"?

Now, this isn't an isolated instance on NEWSHOUR. About two weeks ago, a feature about the union vote at the VW plant in Tennessee fit the same pattern -- a "debate" between a legit source and a Koch-connected State Policy Network propagandist. The propagandist didn't really have an argument. Instead, he spouted an "anti-union feeling masquerading as an argument." Yes, he actually got called out on this -- but not by the moderator.

Do such "contests" in the "marketplace of ideas" help inform us in matters of public interest? Recently, (Ray) Suarez bailed from NEWSHOUR. Maybe he got sick of this charade.

Looking at PBS' flagship news program is especially interesting when considering the Trib; Smith serves on its board of directors. Also, as I've written before, his "confrontational" interview style delivers mild discomfort rather than a moment of truth.

Is this how to "speak truth to power" -- or to cozy up to it?

I don't really think any of this criticism is going to bother the TexTrib all that much... unless their donations begin to wither. And I don't really see that happening.  It IS going to make those of us who read it do so with a far more jaundiced eye, and to that extent I suppose it's worthwhile.

The bloom is definitely off Evan Smith's rose.

Update (March 3): Nobody can deconstruct a lousy poll like Charles Kuffner.  God love him just for reading that Jim Henson defense all the way through; once I got to the "Democratic peanut gallery" crack, I stopped.  And Carl has pinned on his badge and is on the beat.