Fear and loathing and Democrats and Greens

Bumping into this again.

This, of course, is bullshit.  The page that posted it also linked to a Mother Jones article written by Erika Eichelberger, who failed in her reporting as well.  In context, with my emphasis in italics in the excerpt.

If Keister's plan had succeeded, it could have helped Reed—the Northeast regional chairman of the NRCC—by putting on the ballot a progressive candidate who would likely draw votes away from his expected Democratic opponent, county legislator Martha Robertson. But Keister messed up: Because he filed the Robbins petition late and got the other Green Party member's address wrong, neither Green will appear on the ballot for the June primary or the November general election, according to New York election officials.

Let's establish once again that votes are earned, not "siphoned off".  To believe this logical fallacy, you would have to believe another one, that voting populations are zero sum.  So that's pretty much the end of that argument.  But in the comments at the Facebook page, you will see several folks invoking the very stubborn urban legend that Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the 2000 election.

It makes me sad when I see Democrats so afraid of Republicans and losing elections that they go home and kick the cat, so to speak.

So I offered some thoughts on that page, and they promptly deleted them and blocked me.  Then they came over to my blog's Facebook page -- where I had the same comments up -- and posted this.

Baby Boomers and Senior Citizens Against Republicans & The Tea Party Brains and Eggs - We removed you from our page, as it clearly states at the top of our page that we are a "DEMOCRAT ONLY" page, and that we ban trolls. You claim to be progressive? Good luck with that one. Your arguments are comparable to Republican trolls. The only one you are fooling is yourself.

As some of you may know, I was a delegate to the Texas Democratic Party convention, and I did vote in both their primary and their runoff, so by every legal definition of the word, I am a Democrat.  The problem for Democrats -- as you have probably already figured out -- is not just that I don't swallow the party line, it's that I also offer a lot of criticism to Democrats about how they conduct themselves, handle their campaigns, what they stand for, and so on.  This genuinely irritates some people.

As a reminder, I consider myself an independent progressive.  It's accurate to describe me as an activist in both parties.  I am more committed to progressive philosophy than I am partisan politics.  So their blocking me on their page has more to do with their hostility to having their thinking challenged than it does their little rules, or anything else for that matter.  I will acknowledge that the label I have applied to myself creates a lot of cognitive dissonance in partisans, and furthermore that I make no attempt to ameliorate their discomfort.

But for the sake of what happened in this particular disagreement, let's review what "the Democrats" wrote: two logical fallacies, one unprovable premise, one now two several ad hominems, including one calling me an 'ignorant teabagger'.  Hilarious.

That's just no way to get independents and progressives to vote for you, Dems.  And I'm pretty sure that you don't have any votes to lose in 2014, in Texas or almost anywhere else in the country.  And let's also be clear about the verb being used here: you're losing them.  They are not being taken away from you.

Update: Socratic Gadfly wades in with some additional inconvenient truths.

Ebola and Texas

It's too cheap a shot to take at our neighbors to the north about the way the folks at Texas Presbyterian Hospital handled the patient with Ebola who went there and was sent home with antibiotics.  After all, international flights from western Africa arrive daily in Houston.  And Atlanta, and Miami, and New York and Los Angeles and Chicago. 

Overburdened first-line healthcare specialists in the emergency room are responsible for maximizing profit in equivalent measure to the suits in the executive office, no matter which American city's hospitals we speak of.

It is not, on the other hand, unfair to point out that there are lots of people without health insurance who do not see a doctor until they are wildly ill, because their state's leaders refuse to extend them even the most nominal healthcare coverage.

Do we turn away poor folks with Ebola because they don't have insurance?  Of course we don't... because they might infect the children whose parents do have health coverage.  When a third-world problem becomes a first-world problem, then everybody gets excited.

There might be a better way to stop the spread of a contagion than knee-jerk panic reactions.  But that would require planning, and thought, and then taking the proper action.

Not to mention some measure of compassion for those less fortunate.

If there's one thing I know for absolute certain, those are not qualities possessed by the majority of the current leadership of Texas.  And the other certainty is that our once-every-two-or-four-years opportunity to change that is coming up quickly on the calendar.

Texas Lyceum: Abbott 49, Davis 40

From the press release:

A recent poll conducted by the Texas Lyceum, the premiere statewide nonprofit, nonpartisan leadership group, shows that among likely voters Republican Attorney General Greg Abbott is ahead of Democratic State Senator Wendy Davis by nine percentage points.

The killshot...

[Abbott holds] slight leads with both Independents (38 percent to 32 percent) and with women (46 percent to 44 percent).

It's worse for Leticia Van De Putte (47-33, Patrick) and David Alameel (48-30, Cornyn).

This isn't exactly the boost the top of the ticket was hoping for.  If the debates over the past couple of days move the needle favorably, it will have to be reflected in the next poll, YouGov or some other polling outfit working the field at this time.  Time is simply running short for the Democrats to stem this tide.

Here's the link to the executive summary, the full results, and the crosstabs, as well as the main page where those links are all together.

Update: Gadfly has more.

Smackdown

Chris Hooks at the Observer has the best take.

If you only have time to watch one of the three major debates this election cycle, you should make it tonight’s debate in Dallas. If you’re pulling for Wendy Davis to do well, you’ll enjoy it. But it’s worth watching because something strange happened tonight: Like the sky opening up after a monsoon season of turgid talking points, Wendy Davis and Greg Abbott actually took each other on tonight, to a certain extent. And against all odds, something approximating a discussion about policy took place.

[...]

Davis and Abbott grappled with each other on two wide fronts—the first, over ethics issues. Davis was asked about her legal work, which she rebuffed and went through the list of accumulated attack lines about Abbott’s tenure as AG. (She gave a stronger refutation of the conflict-of-interest charge after she was pressed.)

But when Abbott was asked (at about 19:45 in the video) about accusations his office helped hide incompetence and mismanagement with Gov. Perry’s Texas Enterprise Fund, he didn’t handle it very well. He offered that the recently issued audit of the fund didn’t single him out for criticism. “From the beginning of my campaign I’ve been questioning this very fund,” he said. (Perhaps, one suspects, because he knew how badly it was being run.) He tried to turn the question back to Davis, but she beat it back forcefully. As to the question of why Abbott’s office helped hide non-existing TEF applications from reporters, he couldn’t really answer.

The AG did not seem as prepared for tonight's skirmish, was knocked off balance several times, and the moderators -- while very aggressive in going after both candidates -- did not fluster Davis to the extent that they did Abbott. To say that this questioning format was an improvement over the first debate understates its value.

Many more of Davis' punches landed than they did a week ago, Abbott was less successful in batting them away, and the moderators piled on him.  And he couldn't handle it.

On the issues, Abbott and Davis made stark distinctions. Neither could really answer a question about how they’d fund their education plans, though Abbott at least had a dollar figure for student spending that made it appear that he had given it some thought. But Davis hit Abbott hard. It was ludicrous, she said, for Abbott to keep saying he would make Texas schools No. 1 while defending huge cuts to funding and refusing to commit to providing more resources.

“Mr. Abbott, you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth,” she said. “You say you want to make Texas No. 1 in education. You cannot accomplish that goal without making the appropriate investments.”

But the best part of the debate might have been the discussion over Medicaid expansion—at about 29:30 in the video above. Medicaid expansion is, quite literally, a matter of life and death, one of the most serious issues in the race. If Medicaid isn’t expanded in Texas, a quantifiable number of people will suffer and die—unnecessarily. But it hasn’t come up in the race as much as it might.

Abbott said he’d ask the feds to give Texas its Medicaid dollars as a block grant to be spent as the state sees fit, which few think is a realistic possibility. He assured listeners that he “wouldn’t bankrupt Texas” by imposing on Texas the “overwhelming Obamacare disaster.”

Davis laid out a forceful argument for Medicaid expansion. “I have to laugh when I hear Mr. Abbott talk about bankrupting Texas,” she said. “Right now Texans are sending their hard-earned tax dollars to the IRS, $100 billion of which will never come back to work for us in our state unless we bring it back. As governor, I will it bring it back. Greg Abbott’s plan is for you to send that tax money to California and New York.” Abbott’s rebuttal left Davis smiling from ear to ear. The whole fairly long exchange is worth watching.

The debate was pretty much everything the Davis campaign could have wanted.

Later today we should finally see the Texas Lyceum poll we've been waiting for.  Lyceum is nonpartisan, independent, and old-school; they survey adult citizens mostly by landline (which suggests an inherent Republican bias; we'll see).  If it shows Davis any closer than the closest she's been -- eight points behind -- then she'll get a much-needed shot in the arm.

More on the faceoff from the Dallas Morning Views (unimpressed) and Egberto Willies (partisan, impressed).  One excerpt from the second link...

The best illustration of Greg Abbott being beholding to the insurance industry came with a question about home insurance being too high. He could not say the rates were too high. Instead he said he did not look at the numbers. Wendy Davis said categorically that the rates were too high. She slammed Greg Abbott on his insurance industry relationship. “I don’t cotton to people who sell out our hard working Texans for the interest of big insurance companies,” Wendy Davis said. “Mr. Abbott on the other hand has taken enormous contributions from them.”

She went on to say that Greg Abbott most recently advocated a settlement with Farmers Insurance. The judge accused him of laying down to the insurance company and refused to accept the settlement because he was selling out the claimants.

Abbott had one moment when it looked as if he would turn the tables on Davis: in the anticipated discussion of the scandal swirling around the Texas Enterprise Fund, the attorney general accused the senator of profiting from an application (that didn't exist, as we know) to the TEF by virtue of the title company she once worked for having been involved with a sporting goods store (Cabela's, or 'Cabela' as Abbott refers to it) opening in Fort Worth.  She successfully cracked back again: "You're lying, and you know you are lying."  And explained precisely how he was lying.

It seemed to this watcher as if Greg Abbott thought he was gleefully springing a trap, only to have it snap back around his neck, a la Elmer Fudd.

Game over.  Greg Abbott's lifetime of corruption and fraud was exposed and laid bare.  We'll have to wait and see how much it slows his march roll to the Governor's Mansion.

The HouChron also fact-checked.  Also not good for Abbott.

Update: More from Trail Blazers on both the debate and the Lyceum poll.

Fight Night II

Wendy Davis has one more chance to share a debate stage with the Republican front-runner in the race for Texas governor, and if the recent past is any guide, she’ll use most of her hour in Dallas to crank up the heat on Attorney General Greg Abbott.

The debate, which gets under way at 8 p.m. Tuesday, is the second of two televised encounters. At the last debate, held Sept. 19 in Edinburg, Davis issued one attack after another on Abbott, who mostly ignored her accusations and stuck to his rehearsed lines.

It will be interesting to see if Davis can pin Abbott down in some way about his most recent scandal.  He's been awfully slippery so far.

The candidates to succeed Gov. Rick Perry head toward their final debate Tuesday locked in a tussle over one of his signature programs, an economic incentives fund engulfed by a scandal whose political fallout widened over the weekend.

Wendy Davis, the Democratic nominee for governor, on Monday called for an independent investigation into Republican rival Greg Abbott's role in the controversy, which began Thursday with the release of a scathing report by state auditors that found the Texas Enterprise Fund doled out $222 million to 11 entities that did not submit formal applications or were not required to create jobs. Democrats accuse Abbott, the attorney general at the time, of turning a blind eye while accepting campaign contributions from people with ties to grant recipients and covering up the fact that they did not apply for the money.

The revelations have emboldened Democrats on the eve of the debate in Dallas, the stakes of which already were high given Davis' underdog status and the few opportunities she has had to engage Abbott face to face.

The first of these, and the one last night between the two lite gov contenders, reveal the debates for what they are: a big pep rally for the base voters of the two parties.  That's important, but does nothing to expand the electorate, especially when the Republicans only speak in the language the most deranged of their base understands.

Watch for this news.

A new independent poll on the governor’s race by the Texas Lyceum, scheduled for release Wednesday, should provide some clues about where the governor’s race is headed with about a month to go until the election.

Update: While we wait for their numbers on statewide races, here are some appetizers.

Nearly a third of Texans say issues related to the border are among the most important problems facing the state today, far outweighing other concerns, according a poll released Tuesday.

Eighteen percent of Texans who were surveyed picked immigration as the top issue, while 13 percent chose border security. Education came in second with 11 percent of Texans calling it the most important problem, according to the survey, which was conducted Sept. 11-25 by the Texas Lyceum, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization.

When it came to the top issue facing the country, 15 percent of respondents ranked the economy first and 8 percent each said immigration and national security/terrorism. Only 2 percent called the economy the most important problem facing Texas.

With respect to both Abbott's and Dan Patrick's opposition to abortion in cases of rape or incest...

The survey asked respondents to elaborate on their views on abortion, an issue that has been repeatedly raised in the governor’s race. Fifty-four percent of Texans said a woman should be able to have an abortion if there is a “strong chance of a serious defect in the baby,” circumstances similar to those revealed in Democrat Wendy Davis’ memoir.

Abortion has also emerged as an issue in the governor’s race as the Davis campaign accuses Republican Greg Abbott of opposing it even in cases of rape or incest. The poll found 68 percent of Texans believe abortion should be possible under those circumstances.

We should also have another YouGov poll out shortly as well.

Update: In a related development, Abbott has been forbidden from saying 'Obama' in tonight's debate, as a matter of public safety.  You can be certain he will disavow responsibility for any collateral damage.  And Wayne Slater has five things to watch for.

#LtGovDebate: Reality check

Something is see-sawing.

It was lively and contentious, but just as devoid of actual debate as the first Davis-Abbott matchup.

In the only scheduled debate in their race for lieutenant governor, state Sens. Dan Patrick and Leticia Van de Putte faced off on Monday night in a lively exchange that displayed their divergent positions on everything from health care and immigration to school finance and taxes.

Both candidates played offense: Patrick, R-Houston, attempted to portray Van de Putte, D-San Antonio, as “out of step” with Texas voters. Van de Putte used the back-and-forth to try to pin Patrick down on votes he'd taken on cuts to public education. But one of the biggest points of contention in the hour-long showdown in Austin was over the state’s tax structure.

Patrick recently called for reducing the state’s dependence on the property tax to fund public schools and relying on the state’s sales tax instead. On Monday, Van de Putte used Patrick's position to argue that he would raise the sales tax, which she said would hurt businesses and consumers. Patrick sought to clarify his proposal, saying he would only support increasing the sales tax “by a penny or two” to compensate for reduced revenue from property taxes.

“There's two people standing on this stage, and I’m the only one that doesn’t want to raise your sales taxes,” Van de Putte said. “To burden Texas businesses and families with a sales tax increase ... well, that’s not being pro-business.”

When you have a spare hour, watch it and see for yourself.

The live-Tweet stream was entertaining, and Forrest Wilder's live-blogging also.  Here's your take-away.

It can’t be stressed enough: Dan Patrick sounds about as radical as he ever has. By comparison, LVDP sounds like a moderate Republican, I think what Patrick would call a RINO.

Patrick took a similar approach as Abbott did a week ago, throwing out red meat to the Tea Party base of the GOP. There's no attempt whatsoever to reach swing voters or independents or even employ that tired "across the aisle" cliche'.  He fear-mongered over illegals coming over the border with hepatitis, declared he would swap a state sales tax increase for a property tax cut, bragged about cutting education spending, and stood firm in the eyes of the Lord against abortion even in the cases of rape or incest.  As well as gay marriage.

He was right about one thing: the choice is as clear as it ever has been.

Debate Week

Tonight it's LVDP versus Patrick; tomorrow night is round two of Davis-Abbott.

Find a watch party, a list of those outlets telecasting, or watch online.  Follow the geek fighting on Twitter at #TexasDebates or #ltgovdebate.

Update: And just announced... Cornyn vs. Alameel on October 25.

The Weekly Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance hopes everybody read at least one banned book last week as it brings you this weeks' roundup of the best blog posts from the left of Texas.

Off the Kuff presents interviews with two of the many dynamic and well-qualified Democratic women running for legislative offices this year: Rita Lucido in SD17 and Susan Criss in HD23.

Libby Shaw, writing for Texas Kaos and Daily Kos, laments the dire consequences of voting Republican or of not voting at all.  Oh come on Texas, surely we can do better than THIS?

WCNews at Eye on Williamson claims Greg Abbott's latest TV ad is full of dissembling: Abbott's Fundamentally Dishonest Transportation Ad.

Eric Holder was certainly not as bad as Alberto Gonzales, but his tenure as US attorney general still did not merit a passing grade, at least according to PDiddie at Brains and Eggs.

Neil at All People Have Value said there is no inherent conflict between involvement in traditional politics, while at the same time looking for non-conventional protests and movements as a way to move society in a better direction. APHV is part of NeilAquino.com.

Though the new routes are far from being finalized, Texas Leftist shares that Houston METRO has now fully committed to the System Reimagining Plan. After this week's vote by the METRO board, there's no turning back.

Texpatriate had a questionnaire from Harris County DA candidate Kim Ogg (who also debated the Republican incumbent on Sunday morning teevee) and passed along a few more names thrown into the hat for Houston's 2015 mayoral election.

Bay Area Houston wonders why Greg Abbott sat in traffic for a decade before figuring out something needed to be done about it.

BlueDaze has documentation revealing the air pollutants from fracking in Denton, while Texas Vox notes that Texas waters are already polluted, toxic, and unprotected.

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

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

Socratic Gadfly reported on the continuing financial challenges of newspapers large and small.

jobsanger relates the news about the powerful capitalists who insist that the minimum wage must be raised.

The Rag Blog follows up on the scandal involving an East Texas church.

Eight Feet Deep passed on a few headlines from Southeast Texas, including John Travolta's surprise appearance at a Beaumont gym.

SciGuy gives us a look at Russia's astronaut training facility.

Newsdesk reports on Rep. Dawnna Dukes' abortion disclosure.

The Great God Pan Is Dead argues for the elimination of art fairs.

Texas Clean Air Matters cheers Austin and San Antonio's leadership in clean energy.

Andrea Grimes points and laughs at Breitbart Texas.

The Bloggess encourages you to support your local no-kill animal shelter.

The TSTA blog calls out Greg Abbott for lying about his authority as AG to settle the school finance lawsuit.

The Current has more reporting on the shady practices and uninformed advice at crisis pregnancy centers.

Scott Braddock tells the tale of a wingnut catfight.

Finally, our old friends at BlueBloggin are getting ready to make a comeback.

Abbott recovers $1.4 million of TEF funds... into his campaign account

Is there a corruption tolerance limit that can be exceeded?  I suppose we'll find out.

Republican governor nominee Greg Abbott has collected more than $1 million in campaign contributions from beneficiaries of a state business fund cited in a scathing audit for lax oversight of taxpayer dollars.

[...]

An independent audit released this week found the Texas Enterprise Fund awarded $222 million to entities that never submitted applications or promised to create jobs.  The picture that emerged from the state auditor’s report was of an agency that, at least in its early years, gave away taxpayer money without proper evaluation or consistent criteria.

Abbott has received at least $1.4 million in contributions from beneficiaries of the enterprise fund since 2003, according to state records.

Three investors in the biotech company Lexicon, which received $35 million, are Abbott campaign contributors — businessman Robert McNair and chemical executives William McMinn and Gordon Cain. McNair has given $463,000 to Abbott, McMinn $110,000 and Cain $60,000.

Well, there goes my rooting for the Houston Texans any longer.

Update: More in greater detail from Carol Morgan at the Lubbock Avalanche Journal.

Sunday Funnies

Texas, our Texas

-- Christy Hoppe broke the story a few days ago of Governor Perry's most recent (to come to light) financial misdealing.

The first independent audit of the Texas Enterprise Fund shows that the governor’s job-creating fund awarded $222 million — almost half the money granted — to entities that never submitted applications or specific promises to create jobs.

The 98-page report by the state auditor, released to lawmakers Thursday, paints a picture of a $500 million fund that, at least in its early years, gave away taxpayer money without a set evaluation process or a consistent criteria.

Early grants were awarded to companies or universities without their submitting formal applications, and some large projects were never required to create a single job — although that is the legislative mandate by which the fund was started.

Numerous contracts showed inconsistent requirements, weak compliance monitoring and led the auditor to state that it cannot verify many of the jobs or investments that were credited to the program.

Of course this also implicates Greg Abbott, whose job was oversight.  He failed.

As has typically been the case with respect to Republican scandals during this election cycle, Texas media that didn't break the story seem a little slow to push the story, and Texans reading and watching the media would rather read and watch something about a 'latte salute'.   Or 'Muslim prayer rugs at the border'.

Update, TexTrib:

While critics were hounding Gov. Rick Perry a decade ago about his job-luring Texas Enterprise Fund, his lawyers went to Attorney General Greg Abbott to block the release of applications that supposedly had been filled out by the entities requesting taxpayer subsidies.

Abbott’s office, tasked with deciding which government records have to be made public, told Perry's lawyers they must keep the applications secret under exemptions to state transparency laws, according to attorney general rulings and news reports.

Now, though, information contained in a blistering state audit shows that at least five of the recipients that were named in Abbott’s 2004 rulings — and which got tens of millions of dollars from the fund — never actually submitted formal applications. And if no applications ever existed, it’s not clear what Abbott was telling Perry he had to keep secret or why the public is just now learning that millions were awarded without them.

-- The criminal investigation into the Republican nominee for Texas attorney general won't begin until after the election.

The Travis County District Attorney has confirmed that any investigation into the criminal felony complaint filed against Republican candidate for attorney general Ken Paxton would take place after the November 4th General Election. It's a clear signal to voters that electing Paxton would subject the Texas AG's office to immediate post-election uncertainty, disruption and dysfunction.

[...]

According to the Houston Chronicle article, “if the district attorney launches criminal proceedings after November, it would mean Paxton could be facing a grand jury in his first few months as a statewide elected official.”

Paxton has already admitted to committing a felony violation of state securities law. In addition to the criminal investigation, Paxton also faces a complaint before the State Bar that could result in his disbarment.

Paxton’s strategy for avoiding publicity and scrutiny of his criminal behavior has been to avoid public events and refuse to speak with media. At an appearance earlier this summer, Paxton’s campaign aide physically blocked a reporter from getting close enough to ask a question.

Paxton is being shunned by other Republican nominees who, like Greg Abbott, rarely mention him by name.

Some Texans -- some who would typically be alarmed by news like this, that is -- just shrug.  It seems to this Texan that in any other campaign season in almost any other state, this development would be enough for sensible people to go to the polls and clean house.  It happened in Texas, once upon a time.  Yet the odds are good that despite the overpowering stench of corruption, the majority of the Texas electorate will goose-step with linked arms to the polling places and re-elect these vermin.

And to be clear: they are most certainly vermin.  Poisonous, disease-riddled rodents that have crawled out of the sewer and into public office on the strength of an (R) behind their name.  All of that "DemocRATS" business is just projection.  Despite the vile smell of it all, there's no bleach strong enough to get rid of them.

Because this is still Texas.  With respect to what Texans might do about it...

-- The Dallas-Fort Worth area has the greatest number of unregistered and eligible-to-vote Texans.  Houston isn't far behind, and San Antonio and Austin are right behind.  The total of those four metros: well over one million potential votes.  A conservative estimate of the Democratic votes among them would be two out of three, or 67%.

This is why Texas isn't changing, and won't until these Texans change their habit.

-- On a brighter note...

The number of uninsured patients treated at hospitals dropped sharply this year, top White House officials said Wednesday  – cutting costs dramatically for states that opted to expand Medicaid.

Texas isn’t one of those states.

Oh well, it's at least nice to know that some folks -- those who did not have insurance before, those taxpayers who were paying for their care before -- are benefiting.

In states other than Texas, that is.

Eric Holder was certainly no Abu Gonzales

Not even Richard Nixon's John Mitchell, for that matter.

Still, there remain any number of good reasons his departure is long overdue.  Way past time that he make like cow chips and hit the dusty trail.  Head on back to where he came from, or perhaps Goldman Sachs or some such.

Holder’s tenure as Attorney General has been a tragic one. Not only has he been engulfed in partisan scandals over an incompetent gun running sting known as “Fast and Furious,” he has been under fire for attacking the First Amendment rights of the media and is widely seen as having given his friends and former clients on Wall Street a complete pass on the criminal conduct that led to the 2008 financial crisis.

Holder’s involvement with the war on whistleblowers, tracking and intimidating reporters, killing Americans without judicial review, and the abysmal failure to enforce the law against criminals in the financial services industry has left America a more divided and unjust society. Not a particularly good legacy to leave behind.

America not only saw a white collar crime wave go unpunished, but saw Holder himself announce a doctrine that has been called Too Big To Jail. Holder claimed in congressional testimony that some Wall Street banks could not be prosecuted because of their size, saying  “If you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy.”

Holder made no corresponding effort to break up the banks so they could become the appropriate size for him to feel comfortable prosecuting them when they broke the law. Instead, the comment signaled to everyone that if you were big and powerful enough the Holder Justice Department was not coming after you in criminal court – which still holds true as there has not been any major prosecutions against the banks or bankers.

I appreciate what Eric Holder has done in standing up for the Voting Rights Act, and more specifically I am grateful for his fight against Greg Abbott over photo IDs for Texas voters.  How that case eventually turns out may well be a star in his crown.  In terms of admiration, it's difficult for me to remember the day, nearly six years ago, that the Senior Box Turtle from Texas stalled Holder's nomination to AG because Cornyn disagreed that waterboarding was torture.

Ah, the memories.  From June of 2008, Eric Holder, speaking to the American Constitution Society.

"I never thought I would see the day when a Justice Department would claim that only the most extreme infliction of pain and physical abuse constitutes torture and that acts that are merely cruel, inhuman and degrading are consistent with United States law and policy, that the Supreme Court would have to order the president of the United States to treat detainees in accordance with the Geneva Convention, never thought that I would see that a president would act in direct defiance of federal law by authorizing warrantless NSA surveillance of American citizens. This disrespect for the rule of law is not only wrong, it is destructive."

And in June a year ago.

Eric Holder did do some good as attorney general of the United States, but his refusal to prosecute so many more crimes and injustices -- to say nothing of the broken promises of transparency -- is a black mark in the history books.  A very easy bottom line: as long as war criminals and Wall Street thieves walk about free while thousands of petty offenders of marijuana laws languish in jail, Holder's grade as the nation's top law enforcement officer is a failing one.