"All bets are off"

Harvey Kronberg, in his weekly Austin teevee appearance.

“We are seeing something none of us has anticipated, and that is the Abbott campaign is on the defensive. First, they had the Ted Nugent experiment... which was supposed to be about the Second Amendment and ended up being about child predators. The second event was the Lily Ledbetter Act, which is about equal pay. They want to talk about process. But the message that is breaking through now anyway is about equal pay for women. If you have a series of additional issues like that that seem to put the Republicans on the wrong side of women, then all bets are off as to how this election will actually turn out.”

Republican women pinch-hitting for Abbott that are saying women are too busy to be concerned about their pay inequality -- or need to be better negotiators -- is just digging his hole deeper.

Abbott has always been a lousy lawyer and an even worse human being, but now it appears his vaunted political instincts are failing him.  The ladies doing the talking for him this week must have been trained by Todd Akin, or maybe Ralph Reed.  I am amazed that Abbott is making these kinds of mistakes because he's never, ever made them in his political career before.  Like Noah and Charles, I didn't believe that Emerson College poll had enough of a track record to be legitimate, but if another one that does reports a similar tightening of the race, there will be a massive surge in momentum to Davis.  Her press shop is now firing on all twelve cylinders, and that -- as much as Abbott's stumbling (is that insensitive to a man in a wheelchair?) -- has moved her campaign forward in the past week.

Abbott's failings in policy and tactics have been clear to those of us who follow these things closely for some time, and now they're getting more attention, such that the low-interest, low-data, low-participation voters might begin to take notice.  None of this addresses the Democrats' historical turnout problem, but Battleground Texas keeps grinding away on that also.

Now if Senate and Congressional Democrats will just stop running away from Obamacare, November prospects might really brighten up.  Here's their clue on how to turn a negative into a positive, courtesy Dave Weigel.  Nancy Pelosi, in Houston yesterday, reiterated the message: run on Obamacare, and run hard on expanding it (and Medicaid).

Texas Democrats report to their Senate district conventions this weekend, and with stinky options like David Alameel and Kinky Friedman as least worst choices looming in the May runoff, Wendy Davis and Leticia Van de Putte are going to have to do the heavy lifting for the fall slate.  It's a good thing they both have years of experience in doing dirty jobs left to them by the men.

Income inequality, debates for the 1%, and abortion clinic bombers

-- Paying women the same as men is hard work, to paraphrase a previous Texas governor (who fell upward).  And the national media is all over it.  Charles beat me to this, but it's worth repeating.

On equal pay, Texas GOP PAC sends a "busy" signal

Houston Chronicle / Siobhan O'Grady

Just one week after Greg Abbott, Texas' attorney general and the GOP's nominee for the state's gubernatorial race, skirted around a question on equal pay, the executive director of the Lone Star State's newest Republican PAC stumbled through her response to a similar question in a television interview on Sunday.

Red State Women Director: Texas Women Too 'Busy' For Equal Pay Law

Talking Points Memo / Catherine Thompson

Cari Cristman, the executive director of Red State Women PAC, was asked in an interview with Dallas TV station WFAA about Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott's (R) position on equal pay laws. Abbott, who is running for governor against state Sen. Wendy Davis (D), previously told the news station that existing law was sufficient to protect women's pay.

Are Ladies Just Too Busy for the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act?

Jezebel / Kelly Faircloth

Salon reports (see next) that this fascinating line of argument comes via Cari Christman, who heads Texas's Red State Women PAC. Local ABC affiliate WFAA asked whether her organization believes Texas needs an equal pay act. This has become an issue in the state gubernatorial race, as Wendy Davis faces off against former attorney general Greg Abbott. In his last gig, he convinced the Texas Supreme Court that the Lily Ledbetter Act-which gives women longer to file gender discrimination claims after leaving a job-didn't alter Texas's statue of limitations.

Head of GOP PAC targeting women: GOP doesn't support equal pay laws because "women are busy"

Salon / Katie McDonough

As Laura Bassett at the Huffington Post points out (see below), Texas gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis has been making Republican opponent Greg Abbott's record on equal pay a focus of her campaign. As attorney general, Abbott successfully argued before the Texas Supreme Court in a lawsuit brought by a female professor that the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which extended the statute of limitations in such cases, didn't change Texas' state statute of limitations.

Awkward: GOP women's PAC leader says women too "busy" to need equal pay laws

Raw Story / David Edwards

During a Sunday interview with WFAA's Inside Texas Politics, host Jason Whitely told RedState Women Executive Editor Cari Christman that Democrats had accused Republicans of "hitting the panic button" and launching the PAC in the final months before the 2014 elections after gubernatorial candidate Greg Abbott was criticized for campaigning with Ted Nugent. Whitely also pointed out that Abbott had recently said that Texas did not need new laws to protect women against pay discrimination.

Red State Women leader says Texas doesn't need equal pay law

Dallas Morning News / Christy Hoppe

Last week, on the same show, GOP nominee Greg Abbott declined to answer whether he also would have vetoed the equal pay act, called the Lilly Ledbetter Act, named after the federal version of the law. Three years ago, Abbott's office successfully argued before the Texas Supreme Court that federal equal pay protections do not apply in Texas. The 2012 decision determined that a female college professor did not have the right to sue because she discovered the alleged discriminatory pay more than 180 days after she was hired. The Lilly Ledbetter Act provides that a suit can be filed within 180 days of a woman discovering the pay discrepancy.

Head Of GOP Women's PAC Flubs Equal Pay Question

Huffington Post / Laura Bassett

Democratic candidate Wendy Davis has been going after Abbott on equal pay in recent weeks. In addition to dodging the question of whether he supports equal pay, the Davis camp points out, he actively fought against it during his career as Texas Attorney General. Abbott successfully argued before the Texas Supreme Court in Prairie View A&M University vs. Chatha that federal equal pay protections did not apply in Texas, so a female college professor who was paid unfairly did not have the right to sue more than 180 days after the discrimination began.

To quote a really smart woman: "If you have a vagina, and you vote Republican, you are a moron."  I would add: "If you have a vagina, and you don't plan on voting in 2014, then that's the same thing as voting Republican."

-- And just so everyone understands precisely who the Republicans on the ballot answer to, witness the development of a proposed debate between Dan Patrick and David Dewhurst over the weekend, to be held at the 'C' Club in River Oaks.  Except now it's not.  Follow Quorum Report's bulletins, beginning late Friday afternoon...

A LITE GUV DEBATE BEHIND CLOSED DOORS

Dewhurst and Patrick to make their case to some of Houston's business elite

"It's a sign of what kind of government we have," said one observer after hearing the news Friday afternoon that Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and Sen. Dan Patrick will debate behind closed doors in a room with some of Houston's business elite. 

The debate, first reported by the Houston Chronicle, will be held at the River Oaks Country Club and is being hosted by the C Club of Houston. No press will be allowed.  

Then on Monday morning...

A PUSH ALLOW THE MEDIA TO ATTEND TUESDAY'S CLOSED-DOOR LITE GUV DEBATE 

Patrick tries to pressure business group; Dewhurst says he wouldn't mind if C Club debate is open to the press

Sen. Dan Patrick on Monday asked that the business-friendly C Club of Houston allow the media to attend tomorrow's planned Lite Guv debate at River Oaks Country Club. More than a few eyebrows were raised on Friday when it came out that Lt. Gov David Dewhurst and Patrick have agreed to debate behind closed doors in front of some of Houston's business elite. 

Then, after 5 yesterday... 

PATRICK TAKES A PASS ON CLOSED-DOOR DEBATE IN RIVER OAKS, DEWHURST WILL STILL SPEAK TO C CLUB 
Patrick had asked for forum to be open to the press; Dewhurst will speak to them regardless of Patrick's decision

A spokesman for David Dewhurst indicated the incumbent will appear before the business group, despite Patrik's decision to pull out. "Yes. Lt. Governor Dewhurst appreciates any opportunity to speak to groups of Texans and looks forward to debates and forums that are open to the press in the near future," spokesman Travis Considine said. 

In case you didn't buy a program, challenger Patrick is the Buc-ees populist standing up for the TeaBaggers little guy, and wounded, bleeding incumbent Dewhurst is the elitist grubbing for five- and six-figure checks.  This is the most perfect representation of what the Republicans have devolved to than anything you will ever see.

Wayne Slater at the DMN in his Friday story linked to the 'C' Club's site listing their members, but now the club has pulled it down... which is why I took a screenshot.

Yes indeed, we already knew that was how Republicans roll.

-- Last, the abortion clinic bombers are making a comeback.  I wonder if these terrorists will be prosecuted this time.  Eric Holder, I'm not looking at Greg Abbott.

The Weekly Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance is filling out their brackets as they present the best of the Lone Star State's lefty blogs from last week.  And a big "Howdy" and welcome to our newest member, Egberto Willies, who leads off this week's Wrangle.

Every opponent of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) should watch the Daily Show’s Aasif Mandvi and his interview of Fox business commentator Todd Wilemon posted at EgbertoWillies.com.

Off the Kuff analyzes the primary performances of Wendy Davis and Bill White.

Horwitz at Texpatriate presents a novel idea to start getting students voting.

WCNews at Eye on Williamson once again points out Texas' unfair tax system, in No one is offering an alternative to the raw deal Texas taxpayers are getting.

Libby Shaw at Texas Kaos reminds Greg Abbott that no means NO: Greg Abbott tries to spin no into yes.

A Fort Bend Republican wrote an article for Houston Style magazine about "Democrat" Kesha Rogers. You can imagine how ridiculous that was. Well, no you can't, because it's even worse than you can imagine. PDiddie at Brains and Eggs called BS on it about five times. But nobody involved bothered to correct the record.

Neil at All People Have Value said we should self-edit our lives in the same way that time has edited the works of the Ancient Greek poet Sappho.  All People Have Value is part of NeilAquino.com.

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

And here's more from other great Texas blogs.

The Denton fracking ban initiative has exceeded the number of signatures necessary to put the measure on the ballot in November, reports TXSharon at Bluedaze.

Dan Patrick is bad for Texas, but would be particularly bad for Texas education, as Socratic Gadfly observes in sampling and expanding on an op-ed in the Waco Herald-Tribune.

Prairie Weather sounds the alarm for Democrats (in Texas and across the country) as voter turnout levels for the primary are abysmal, and Senate Dems on the ballot this year start running away from the president, his policies, and his appointees.

Stace at Dos Centavos seems a little irritated about President Obama's review of the federal deportation policy.  Not as irritated as he is at the GOP's standing position, however.

Burnt Orange covered Wendy Davis' East Texas tour.

The Inanity of Sanity notes that it's going to be a long hot summer for ALEC here in Deep-In-The-Hearta.

Cody Pogue calls the state's new abortion restrictions what they are: a threat to women's health.

Michael Li at Texas Redistricting charts our civic engagement crisis.  And the Texas Observer's Christopher Hooks amplifies that -- linking to another of Li's posts -- in describing the not-so-democratic party primary system (that both Texas Republicans and Democrats practice).

Texas Watch wants private insurers to pay their fair share before any rate hikes are considered.

Juanita Jean at the World's Most Dangerous Beauty Salon predicts Tom DeLay's next career move.

Keep Austin Wonky advocates for using Austin's budget surplus on universal pre-K.

Grits for Breakfast laments the "dystopic no-man's land" created by the RGV border fence.

John Coby at Bay Area Houston recaps the frustrating process of choosing the best electricity provider, and got some ink in the Pearland Journal with an op-ed about the man-made disaster that is the Texas Windstorm Insurance Association.

Lastly, In The Pink explains what the movie "Frozen" is really about.

Sunday Funnies

Wendy Davis' new communications director

Appears to be just what she needs.

Democratic Sen. Wendy Davis’ campaign for governor has hired U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s former communications director.

Zac Petkanas, Davis’ new communications director, most recently was senior communications adviser for the Nevada State Democratic Party.

Before that, Petkanas was Reid’s communications director, and he was deputy communications director for Reid’s re-election campaign.

Not the 'Harry Reid' part.  This 'smashmouth' part.

In just the last few days, some members of the Capitol Press Corps have noticed a shift in how the Davis campaign is interacting with us. It also seems, for the moment at least, that the Davis folks are more nimble than before in reacting to events and seizing on chances to drive their narrative in the press.

[...]

After joining the Davis team, one of Petkanas’ first online statements about GOP nominee for governor Greg Abbott was that after the AG “campaigned with sex predator & fought equal pay for women, no wonder new GOP PAC hitting panic button in Texas." That’s apparently a reference to a new political action committee called Red State Women. As the name suggests, it’s an effort aimed at women here. It is also, one could argue, an attempt to counter any chance Davis might have at convincing GOP women to cross over and vote for the Democrat in November.

Even better is seeing the press releases this week also.

-- "Davis: Abbott took huge pay increase but fights equal pay for equal work" (on March 12, the same as his Tweet linked above)

-- DAVIS CAMPAIGN SLAMS ABBOTT’S SILENCE ON POTENTIALLY UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR ON CPRIT BOARD (yesterday)

The campaign Tweeted this to emphasize the first one, and Wayne Slater at the Dallas News wrote this in response to the second one.  So I would say Zac is off to a fast start.

Davis is in Beaumont today pumping up her volunteers, and my mother wants to go, so maybe I'll get a word or a photo with the candidate.  If I do, you'll hear about it.

Ted Cruz blames missing Malaysian jetliner on Obamacare

I'm sure there's more important headlines -- like Rick Perry getting booed on Jimmy Kimmel's SXSW remote, or Buc-ees desperately working to insure that the .1% of their customers who are registered to vote clearly understand that they are bipartisans, or even that the NSA has pretended to be Facebook as they tricked you into downloading malware -- but as winter finally breaks into a lovely spring (locally, at least), we'll go with this news.

BEIJING—The mystery surrounding the disappearance of the Malaysia Airlines jet over the weekend took a sinister turn today, as Sen. Ted Cruz (R—TX) revealed that two of the passengers on board had recently signed up for insurance under the Affordable Care Act.

“Although we cannot prove that this tragedy was caused by the White House’s misguided efforts at health-care reform, the math doesn’t lie,” said Cruz at a combined Tea Party/lobotomy convention. “Experts have said that the probability of two people getting Obamacare insurance and boarding a plane, and then having that plane crash, is less than one in a million.”

Cruz said it would be inappropriate to speculate on the exact mechanism by which health insurance could have caused the disaster, but noted that “crash” and “healthcare.gov” had appeared together in news articles more than ten thousand times in the last six months. “Everywhere we look, we see the President’s fingerprints on this,” he added.

In related news, the White House offered its condolences to the families of those presumed dead on the missing jet. “What makes this tragedy even worse,” said spokesman Jay Carney, “is that one of those passengers was supposed to make the final decision on the Keystone XL pipeline.”

Find more riveting stories like that here, and now in the perpetually updating blogroll at the right.

The CIA can't cover their tracks

Nothing really bothered me more -- in the early blogging days -- than to come to the realization that the United States, represented by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, was kidnapping and torturing people in the wake of 9/11.  And close behind that, what we came to quaintly call warrantless wiretapping of American citizens.

A decade has passed and there remains no proper accounting for either of those atrocities.  The NYT op-ed board presents the state of that union today. (My emphasis throughout.)

It was outrageous enough when two successive presidents papered over the Central Intelligence Agency’s history of illegal detention, rendition, torture and fruitless harsh interrogation of terrorism suspects. Now the leader of the Senate intelligence committee, Dianne Feinstein, has provided stark and convincing evidence that the C.I.A. may have committed crimes to prevent the exposure of interrogations that she said were “far different and far more harsh” than anything the agency had described to Congress.

Senator DiFi, both long and recently a staunch defender of the surveillance state as it evolved over the past 12 years, has flip-flopped.  Her transformed thinking came about as a result of her discovery this week that yes, the CIA spies on senators too, just like it does the rest of us.  David Corn at Mother Jones immediately recognized the constitutional crisis, but you can read about that in a moment.

Feinstein’s speech detailed the lengths to which the C.I.A. had gone to hinder the committee’s investigation, which it began in 2009 after senators learned the agency had destroyed videotapes of the interrogations under President George W. Bush. Under President Obama, prosecutors exonerated the officials who ordered those tapes destroyed.

Feinstein said that when Senate staff members reviewed thousands of documents describing those interrogations in 2009, they found that the C.I.A.’s leadership seriously misled the committee when it described the interrogations program to the panel in 2006, “only hours before President Bush disclosed the program to the public.”

When the Senate staff compiled a still undisclosed 6,300-page report, it described these acts and also concluded that the C.I.A. had falsely claimed that torture and other brutality produced useful intelligence. The report has been going through the snail’s pace review and declassification process since December 2012. The C.I.A. disputed some of its findings. But Feinstein publicly confirmed on Tuesday that an internal review by the C.I.A. had reached conclusions similar to those in the Senate staff report. 

Almost flushed down the memory hole, but like a massive dump in a low-flow toilet, the CIA couldn't plunge fast enough.

It was the committee staff’s possession of that internal review — which the C.I.A. has refused to give to the Senate — that spurred what Ms. Feinstein said was an illegal search of computers (provided to the Senate staff by the C.I.A.) that contained drafts of the internal review. 

Ms. Feinstein said that staff members found the drafts among the documents that the C.I.A. had made available to the committee. She said she did not know whether the drafts were put there inadvertently, or by a whistle-blower. The Senate’s possession of the documents was entirely legal, she said.

Are we all caught up now?  This isn't an episode of Homeland, or 24, or House of Cards.  No teevee show can concoct a plot this nefarious.  It would be rejected as too outlandish by the producers.

The Justice Department now has a criminal investigation to conduct, but the C.I.A. internal review and the Senate report must be released. Feinstein called on President Obama to make public the Senate report, which he has supported doing in the past. She said that this would “ensure that an un-American, brutal program of detention and interrogation will never again be considered or permitted.”

The lingering fog about the C.I.A. detentions is a result of Mr. Obama’s decision when he took office to conduct no investigation of them. We can only hope he knows that when he has lost Dianne Feinstein, he has no choice but to act in favor of disclosure and accountability.

Mo Dowd breaks it down for you if you're still not feeling any sense of urgency.

In his mad odyssey through the dark side — waterboarding, secret rendition, indefinite detention, unnecessary war and manipulation of C.I.A. analysis — Dick Cheney did his best to vitiate our system of checks and balances. His nefarious work is still warping our intelligence system more than a decade later.

Barack Obama, the former Constitutional law teacher who became president vowing to clean up the excesses and Constitutional corrosion of W. and Cheney, will now have to clean up the excesses and Constitutional corrosion in his own administration. And he’d better get out from between two ferns and get in between the warring Congressional Democrats and administration officials — all opening criminal investigations of each other — because it looks as if the C.I.A. is continuing to run amok to cover up what happened in the years W. and Vice encouraged it to run amok.

Langley needs a come-to-Jesus moment — pronto.

One last bit.

In June, Brennan had issued a 122-page classified rebuttal to the still-classified $40 million, 6,300-page Senate report. But Feinstein said on the floor that she found the C.I.A. riposte “puzzling,” given that the Panetta internal review admitted to what the C.I.A.’s rebuttal objected to. Given the C.I.A.’s 2005 destruction of videotapes showing the torture of two Al Qaeda operatives, Feinstein said she has now locked up in the committee vault in the Hart Office Building the parts of the (former CIA chief) Panetta review that her staff had printed out before it disappeared. She has also requested in writing that Brennan turn over a complete version of the review to the committee.

She said she has received no answers from Brennan, who is no fan of Congress or the media, to her formal questions about the agency’s actions and no response to her request for an apology. She was clearly appalled by the nerve of the agency’s acting general counsel, Robert Eatinger, in making a criminal referral to the Justice Department suggesting her staff is guilty of wrongdoing.

She noted that Eatinger, whom she identified only by job title, worked in the Bush administration as a lawyer in the C.I.A.’s counterterrorism center, which carried out the notorious detention and interrogation program. She observed archly that Eatinger’s name was cited more than 1,600 times in the Senate report.

In 2007, The Times’s Mark Mazzetti and Scott Shane reported that when a C.I.A. official trashed those interrogation videotapes, he told superiors that two C.I.A. lawyers had signed off on it. One was Eatinger. In a Q. & A. at the Council on Foreign Relations just after Feinstein’s floor speech, Brennan told Andrea Mitchell that he is in no way trying to “thwart” the Senate. He denied that the C.I.A. hacked into Senate computers, noting that it was beyond “the scope of reason in terms of what we would do.”

But is anything beyond the scope of reason for the C.I.A. anymore? Shouldn’t someone have gone to jail now besides the guy who blew the whistle on waterboarding? It’s typical that Langley, which has bungled so much for decades, couldn’t even spy on the Senate properly without getting caught. 

Another appropriate question: was the CIA too busy spying on the Senate Intelligence Committee to notice that Vladimir Putin was about to usurp the Ukraine?  To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, we apparently are going to have refight the Cold War with the spies -- and their lawyers -- that we have, not the ones we wish we had.

And I don't trust any of those fuckers one little bit.  To David Corn, as referenced above.

What Feinstein didn't say—but it's surely implied—is that without effective monitoring, secret government cannot be justified in a democracy. This is indeed a defining moment. It's a big deal for President Barack Obama, who, as is often noted in these situations, once upon a time taught constitutional law. Feinstein has ripped open a scab to reveal a deep wound that has been festering for decades. The president needs to respond in a way that demonstrates he is serious about making the system work and restoring faith in the oversight of the intelligence establishment.

We'll stand by patiently as we wait for the president's bold, firm, authoritative response.

More GOP journamalism, local edition

Good ol' Fort Bend Republican flack Burt Levine -- I've mentioned him here before a time or two -- has a piece in Houston Style about Kesha Rogers and her bid to be the Democratic nominee for the US Senate in November.  It's somewhat lacking in reality-based information, not to mention one of the elementary standards of journalism, however.

The article presents Rogers in favorable light, especially considering her demonstrative track record of abject lunacy.  That Burt wants to make a little mischief in the May primary runoff between Rogers and David Alameel is not the biggest problem, though.

The original included a quote from Harris County Democratic Party chair Lane Lewis praising Rogers.  The article you see now at the link I posted above has been been edited for removal of Lewis' name and mention of the HCDP.  Lewis clarified his non-participation in this Facebook status update yesterday.  As it turns out, Levine not only misattributed something said about Rogers to the wrong Harris Dem chairman and the wrong election, he also cut and pasted the bio data used in the story from Rogers' Wiki page.

I'm going to save Burt further embarrassment if he can prove himself himself capable of acknowledging his mistakes later today, but there are a few screenshots I can post, especially if any further edits to the Style piece are made.  You can follow the links I've embedded -- and read the comments at them -- to get the gist of it.

Burt: I hear Breitbart Texas has an opening.  You're qualified.

Update: the article has had another online revision without notification, adding this graf.

The former Chairman of the Harris County Democratic Party has said, "One of the things the Rogers at 37 years old is able to do is to engage young people. If she can turn out young people to vote for Democrats it is all the better."

That is indeed former HCDP chair Gerry Birnberg speaking in 2010, as previously linked.  Except that in 2010, Rogers was 33 years old.  And Birnberg did not reference Rogers' age at all in the Chronicle's account.

Breitbart Texas runs off the rails

And not in the way we would have thought.  After the pimping Texas Sparkle gave them... well, "nobody" (except Christopher Hooks at the Texas Observer) could have seen this coming.

It’s been a little under a month—how is Breitbart Texas doing so far in bringing its investigative reporting background to clean out the partisan snake-pit of Texas media?

For the most part, Breitbart Texas’ output has been a mishmash of rote news aggregation, announcements that seem like transliterations of press releases in support of favored candidates, and an eclectic assortment of dispatches from the Breitbart contributor network, who receive $100 per post, according to the Daily Caller.

One such contributor, who goes by the twitter handle @OutOfTheBoxMom, wrote an article that consists of a list of participants and contributors to the South by Southwest Education conference. Another wrote an 88-word piece headlined “HOUSTON: SON SETS MOM’S APARTMENT ON FIRE FOR REFUSING TO BUY MARIJUANA.” It has more than a hundred comments. The source of the article—presumably a Houston Chronicle article from the same day—is not mentioned or linked to.

Then there’s the fact that Breitbart routinely runs articles written by Michael Q. Sullivan, like this lengthy jeremiad against House Speaker Joe Straus, without properly identifying Sullivan or his organizations.

That relay is pretty farcical, so it's hard to imagine how it all blew up in their faces.

But that all pales in comparison to the rift that’s recently developed in Breitbart Texas caused by the recent firing of Lee Stranahan, a Breitbart veteran who had quit the organization last fall, before rejoining Breitbart Texas as it launched last month. Stranahan, one of the $100-a-piece contributors, was working under “bureau chief” Brandon Darby, who made his name by running with anarchist and far-left groups and  passing information on them to the FBI. Stranahan’s beat: the “institutional left” and “corruption.”

Stranahan, according to the Daily Caller, was a comparative old-timer at Breitbart, who felt ill at ease with the direction the site has taken in recent years. He was among those who miss the leadership Andrew Breitbart provided for the organization and the movement in general. Stranahan quit the website last fall in part because of qualms about the site’s direction—but he signed up again with the launch of Breitbart Texas. He needed the money.

That all fell apart last week, when a simmering rift between Stranahan and Darby spiraled out of control. Stranahan alleges Darby killed a number of stories that reflected unfavorably on individuals Darby had ties with. One of them had to do with an attorney named Dan Backer, who Stranahan says was funneling money from tea party groups to “establishment” Republicans like Mitch McConnell. When Darby wouldn’t publish that story, Stranahan began tweeting details from the killed piece. That’s when Darby took the remarkable step of attacking his own reporter’s ethics, tweeting that Stranahan had once solicited money for a documentary he was making from Dan Backer.

“Person asks group for $. Group says no. Person then attacks the group without mentioning they tried to get $ before attacking,” wrote Darby in a since-deleted tweet.

Annnnd there's more.

The whole thing might have faded away after that, except for the fact that someone began forwarding emails from the fight to the Daily Caller’s Betsy Rothstein, a Washington, D.C.-based gadfly who trades in media gossip. The exchanges display a remarkable level of dysfunction within the organization, and some embarrassing anecdotes. Stranahan accuses Darby of being a “coward” and “pigheaded” and even alleges that Darby once cooked up a plan, as part of a long-running inter-office rivalry, to accuse one senior conservative journalist of having a attraction to the late Andrew Breitbart’s under-age son:

“Also; please confirm that a bit over a year ago, you told me in no uncertain terms that you had a plan to file false police charges against Jeffery Scott Shapiro, with the knowingly false claim that he had a sexual interest in Sampson Breitbart.”

The whole thing is unbelievably sordid and embarrassing, for all parties. To make matters even worse, Stranahan, who took stories that got killed by Darby and published them on his own website, recently had to append a major correction to one of his stories when a big part of his case against Backer’s PAC—the fact that the group had donated money to a Democratic congressman from North Carolina—turned out to be a financial reporting error.

And at the link, Stranahan has some comments attempting to rebut Wilder, while "Stranaham" rebuts him.  It's like watching the Harlem Globetrotters and the Washington Generals play roller derby.

The parts I didn't excerpt included David Dewhurst's laudatory kudos of BBTX on launch, just a month ago.  What a coincidence that they are both flaming out at the same time.

That was schadenfreude so rich and creamy that I had to take extra insulin after reading it.

The Weekly Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance is always springing forward as it brings you this week's roundup.

Off the Kuff points out that the Texas Tribune's pollsters forget or ignore their own past data in analyzing the polls they have done for 2014.

Horwitz at Texpatriate bids farewell to all the dirtbags we won't have to kick around anymore after last Tuesday's primary.

Bernie Sanders might run for president in 2016 -- as a Democrat, or a Green, or an independent. PDiddie at Brains and Eggs really doesn't care which it is; he's all in.

WCNews at Eye on Williamson after last week's primaries gives some initial 2014 primary thoughts.

Neil at All People Have Value said seemingly contradictory things such as ice in Houston while the world is warming are easily true. Neil said we should be flexible and open and not rigid. All People Have Value is part of NeilAquino.com.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme knows Greg Abbott must be delusional. Not to mention arrogant for saying he'll get more than 49% of the Hispanic vote. Not. Going. To. Happen.

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

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

Better Texas analyzes the final rules for ACA navigators.

Juanita Jean will not be posting Steve Stockman's mugshot, nosirree.

The Lunch Tray says it's not crazy at all for chicken to be shipped to China for processing.

Offcite tries to balance Houston's prosperity and air quality.

Texas Redistricting tells us what the primary does and doesn't tell us about voter ID.

BOR documents the legislative primary runoffs that will be on some people's ballots in May.

The Queso sets your schedule for SXSW.

And finally, he's not a Texan but The Slacktivist's explanation of how four religious conservative North Texas legislators got scammed by one of their own is well worth your time to read.

Sunday Funnies

Bernie Sanders for President

I'm all in.

In some senses, Sanders is the unlikeliest of prospects: an independent who caucuses with the Democrats in the Senate but has never joined the party, a democratic socialist in a country where many politicians fear the label “liberal,” an outspoken critic of the economic, environmental and social status quo who rips “the ruling class” and calls out the Koch brothers by name. Yet, he has served as the mayor of his state’s largest city, beaten a Republican incumbent for the US House, won and held a historically Republican Senate seat and served longer as an independent member of Congress than anyone else. And he says his political instincts tell him America is ready for a “political revolution.”

In his first extended conversation about presidential politics, Sanders discussed with The Nation the economic and environmental concerns that have led him to consider a 2016 run; the difficult question of whether to run as a Democrat or an independent; his frustration with the narrow messaging of prominent Democrats, including Hillary Clinton; and his sense that political and media elites are missing the signs that America is headed toward a critical juncture where electoral expectations could be exploded.

Keep reading that piece or watch this interview with Bill Moyers.



I don't care which party he runs in -- Dem, Green, or as an indy -- he's got everything I can give him in terms of money, time, shoe leather, and unlimited cell phone minutes. As for where he shows up on the ballot, these tea leaves suggest that, while still undecided, he's leaning blue.

If and when you do start a full-fledged campaign, and if you want to run against conventional politics, how far do you go? Do you go to the point of running as an independent? That’s a great challenge to conventional politics, but it is also one where we have seen some honorable, some capable people stumble.

That’s an excellent question, and I haven’t reached a conclusion on that yet. Clearly, there are things to be said on both sides of that important question. Number one: there is today more and more alienation from the Republican and Democratic parties than we have seen in the modern history of this country. In fact, most people now consider themselves to be “independent,” whatever that may mean. And the number of people who identify as Democrats or Republicans is at a historically low point. In that sense, running outside the two-party system can be a positive politically.

On the other hand, given the nature of the political system, given the nature of media in America, it would be much more difficult to get adequate coverage from the mainstream media running outside of the two-party system. It would certainly be very hard if not impossible to get into debates. It would require building an entire political infrastructure outside of the two-party system: to get on the ballot, to do all the things that would be required for a serious campaign.

The question that you asked is extremely important, it requires a whole lot of discussion. It’s one that I have not answered yet.

Hand to heart, I'd like to see him run as a Green.  That's where he fits best, and he could really help build the GPUS into the kind of player it is in Western Europe (particularly Germany).  A thriving democracy needs more options, but it just won't happen until we get the money out of our system, and there is simply too much entrenched opposition -- from the media, consultants, and even the electeds who profit from it -- for that to happen in my lifetime.  In a craft beer world, it's a shame that Americans only have Bud and Bud Lite from which to choose politically.

But if Sanders ran as a Democrat, he would disrupt the stale conventional wisdom and quake the so-called liberal party to its foundation.  And that also needs to badly happen.

Let's be clear: after yet another long, loud, somewhat divisive Democratic presidential primary season in 2016 -- as in 2008 -- Hillary Clinton would emerge as the nominee.  Not wounded either, but battle-hardened.  And Sanders will have accomplished as much of his task as is possible: pulling the establishment away from the right and back to the left.  And perhaps a few other beneficial things as well.

Good thing, because we're in for a couple of miserable years, as I take reckoning today.  Greg Abbott is more likely than not to be the next governor of the Great State, with Dan Patrick running the state Senate as lieutenant governor.  The Texas Legislature will be 2/3 majority in both houses, which gives the worst conservatives in the country carte blanche to do whatever they like.  The United States Senate stands a better than 50% chance of flipping red after November 2014, leaving Barack Obama without a working phone but with a pen he will have to use to veto every bill he gets from Congress.

We ain't had no gridlock until you see what that looks like, folks.  No SCOTUS justices confirmed (to say nothing of appellate courts and Cabinet nominees), debt ceilings fail to get raised... just your basic governmental apocalypse, that's all.  Thanks, Tea Party!

But in 2016, another Democrat will get elected to the White House and the US Senate will flip back to blue.  Hell, the moderate Republicans may have even iced Ted Cruz by that time, after he loses to Hillary in an electoral landslide.  He returns to being a loud-mouthed backbencher in the upper chamber, though, so not exactly the most fortuitous outcome.  You can't have everything.

Bernie Sanders running for president shakes up the Etch-A-Sketch a little.  Not enough, but it's as close to a revolution as America is capable of.