Jill Stein will run for president again

Best 2016 development of the week, as far as I'm concerned.

Most voters will likely never know her name, let alone cast a vote for her at the ballot box, but that’s not deterring Dr. Jill Stein from running for president in 2016.

Stein was the Green Party’s presidential nominee in 2012 and is expected to announce Friday the she’s exploring another White House bid in 2016.

Prior to making the announcement, Stein sat down exclusively with “Power Players” to explain why she’s stepping forward as an alternative to the current field of likely presidential contenders that she characterizes as “corrupt and sold out.”

“There are rules that make it possible for the very rich to buy politicians and that's what's going on,” Stein said. “There's a horse race around grabbing the money right now, and I think it speaks volumes about what a really sorry state our political system has come to.”

So unlike Bernie Sanders, she will run as a spoiler.  Don't worry, though, Hillary fans; I doubt you'll be able to blame another Green wrongly for "siphoning off" votes.

In her 2012 campaign, Stein received fewer than half a million votes across the country – less than 1 percent of the total popular vote – and was even arrested for trying to get into a televised debate from which she was excluded.

Stein recalled the arrest – and subsequent holding – as “the most bizarre experience you can imagine.”

“For trying to get into that debate, I was actually arrested, taken to a dark site where no one knew where I was - the site was secret - and held handcuffed to metal chairs for approximately eight hours,” Stein said. “It speaks volumes about how terrified the political system is that the voices of principled opposition may actually get heard."

Ladies and gentlemen, this is your candidate if you suddenly find yourself in October of 2016 whining about not having any good options.  A vote for Stein is much better for people who might cast a ballot for Mickey Mouse or Pat Paulsen or Hypnotoad, or some other protest vote, since they cannot abide the establishment-preferred, consultant-recommended duopoly nominees.  Console yourself, neoliberals;  in the "siphon off" illusion, even the Libertarian (I'm thinking Gary Johnson at this point, just like last time) will get about three times as many votes as Stein.  Just like last time.

Five percent of the national vote would be amazing, three percent would be real progress, but anything better than four years ago will still represent only the smallest, softest voices for changing a system buried under an avalanche of Supreme Court-approved speech money from the Kochs, et.al.   They remain voices that need to be heard, ideas that need to be discussed.  I'll consider it a monumental advance if Stein and Johnson are allowed to participate in the presidential debates.  The primary obstacle to overcome isn't getting the message out; it's changing hearts and minds about "wasting" one's vote and various other truisms, myths, and urban legends in that regard.  Greens are making great headway in Europe; along with associated issues like banning fracking (good news, natural gas exporters!) and GMOs, they're even gaining seats in Parliament, so perhaps there's still hope left for us here in the United States.

We can assert that Texas will be last as always in terms of progress.  That won't stop anybody from making the effort, from fighting the battle that needs to be fought.  Democrats in off-presidential election years -- and Republicans in presidential ones -- ought to be able to relate to that.

Update: Indy Political Report with the press release, and Irregular Times and jobsanger with more.

The week's 2016 developments

-- The Democratic establishment is coalescing rapidly behind Hillary Clinton.  That's not just bad news for Bernie Sanders and (I suppose) Elizabeth Warren, but also Joe Biden.  According to Vox, she's already assembled a "murderer's row" of political consultants, advisers and strategists.  You should already know what I think about news like that.  Matt Bai's problems with the Clinton Death Star are also mine.

Witness the procession of Democratic boomers, liberals as unimpeachable as Howard Dean and Al Franken, who have lined up in recent months to endorse a candidate who isn’t even running yet and hasn’t offered a single reform one could endorse.

I’m not saying it’s all the fault of Clinton or her longtime acolytes that there aren’t other candidates coming forward to challenge her. The party’s ranks of up-and-coming politicians took a real hit during the wave elections of 2010 and 2014, and there just aren’t a ton of strong, natural contenders this time around. It’s not Clinton’s job to invent them.

But there are some potential rivals, including the more than able vice president of the United States and the well-regarded, former two-term governor of Maryland, Martin O’Malley. And at some point, if your goal is to rig this thing for Clinton, you have to look in the mirror and ask yourself if this is the kind of Democratic politics you really intended to create — the kind where the establishment decides who the nominee will be 18 months before the convention, without a single idea on the table or a single choice yet defined.

You have to ask yourself something else, too: Does trying so blatantly to steamroll the modern nominating process make it more likely that your candidate will avoid a bunch of bruising primary debates, or less so? If you got your start in Democratic politics 40-odd years ago, the answer to that one should be obvious.

-- Rand Paul is having a bad week with both his vaccine shots and with the media, Chris Christie had a lousy week overall, and a bad week got worse for Scott Walker, as his state budget took incoming fire and forced him to retreat.  Mike Huckabee successfully navigated the vaccine minefield, but face-planted into a platter of bacon-wrapped shrimp in a Jewish deli.

Compared to these guys, the reports that Jeb Bush was a hash-smoking bully in high school count as a sunny day for the GOP field.

Update (2/6): Jon Stewart via Egberto has some fun with Hillary and the gaggle of Republicans.

Is Adrian Garcia a flip-flopper or something worse?

Stace at Dos Centavos is, as he usually is, nicer than I am...

The President’s change includes a re-vamped deportation program which supposedly deports the worst of the worse; however, that was the intent as written of the original program. So, it is still a program that will be under the microscope, especially at the Harris County Sheriff’s Office, whether Garcia is at the helm or not.

Given that there is still an imminent announcement of a Mayoral candidacy, Garcia resigning and leaving the post to a right-wing Republican who more than likely will not agree with the President’s executive action will surely put Garcia in a position to defend the President’s executive action during the Mayoral campaign. Certainly, it will also frame the position of a possible Republican appointed Sheriff for 2016.

 ...but Rob Block at Free Press Houston is much meaner, calling him an 'opportunist'.  I'm excerpting the backstory he wrote on Garcia and the Secure Communities/287 (g) immigration actions, ground I've covered years ago, just so you don't have to click my links.

Adrian Garcia is the first Democrat elected as Harris County Sheriff in a long time, and he replaced someone who was pretty terrible in terms of protecting the human rights of people who end up in the county jail. Still, one reason that Garcia stands out is as a national champion of the Secure Communities Program, and as one of only two law enforcement agencies in the state of Texas to maintain a 287(g) agreement with the Department of Homeland Security. Both of Secure Communities and 287(g) are designed to identify people who are undocumented that end up in the county jail and deport them.

[...]

These programs were marketed as focusing on and deporting the worst of the worst — gang-bangers and violent criminals. But only 30% of those deported from Houston were convicted of violent crimes, the remainder being convicted of a mix of non-violent crimes, traffic offenses, or the civil (not criminal) offense of being here without papers.

This fall President Obama announced that he was going to take executive action on immigration, which included an end the Secure Communities Program, which would be replaced by a “New Priority Enforcement Program” which works in a similar way, but should only target those convicted of violent and serious crimes. Adrian Garcia appeared on the NPR Radio program Hear and Now a week after President Obama’s announcement and said that this new program means less people will be deported and that that is a good thing.

While it's great that he sees this program as a good thing, it would have been nice for him to be able to notice this earlier and push for the changes publicly while his office was facilitating the deportations of thousands of residents of Harris County for non-violent crimes.  Adrian Garcia was either being dishonest in championing a program that he knew was deporting people who should not be deported, or he is being dishonest now that he is happy this new program should deport less people. Either way, we should be able to hope for more from someone who is proud of his heritage as a child of immigrants, and has political ambitions for higher office.

See, I'm not the only guy who thinks Adrian Garcia is talking out of both sides of his mouth.  Or having trouble deciding whether he's still a Democrat or has devolved into a Republican.  Whichever happens to be the case, he's going to have real problems with Harris County Democrats -- the Latino caucuses of which he must have in his corner for a presumptive mayoral run -- if he quits the SO (handing that job to a Republican), runs for mayor... and then loses.  Essentially his political career will be over.  As a Democrat, anyway.

These mixed messages he's sending would suggest that he's smart enough to understand all this, and that he's in a real quandary about pulling the trigger on a dash for City Hall.

We'll keep waiting while he makes up his mind.

Update: The TexTrib has more on the feds' efforts to recruit Texans -- which include Garcia and HUD Secretary Julian Castro -- to sell Obama's immigration plan.

Money games Texas legislators play

Thanks much to Ross Ramsey at the Texas Tribune for these reports on the financial chicanery being vigorously exercised in Austin.  First, your primer on the machinations involved with reporting, raising, and spending the money donated to our state senators and representatives from 'concerned citizens'.  Let's move on after that to this: it's not a bribe if it's a gift.

What might look like a bribe to you could actually be a free and perfectly legal ticket to a rock concert, or dinner and drinks at a renowned Austin restaurant for a top state official.

“This is legalized bribery — it creates an actual exemption to the bribery statute,” says Paul Hobby, chairman of the Texas Ethics Commission. “Why do we legally allow any bribery? I just think we should have that conversation with ourselves.”

It's called "chickenshit makes the best fertilizer", Mr. Hobby.

You can violate the state’s bribery law by offering or accepting (or even just agreeing to offer or accept) any benefits in return for decisions, votes or recommendations by a public servant. There is an exception, though, for “a gift, award, or memento to a member of the legislature or executive branch” that lobbyists are legally required to report. Short form: If the law requires lobbyists to report buying the meal or the gift or whatever, it is a boon and not a bribe.

The exemption in the bribery statute covers the kinds of gifts you might imagine — everything from paperweights to saddles to engraved pen and pencil sets. It also covers entertainment, food, beverages and, in certain situations, travel and lodging for legislators.

It functions like any other loophole, providing an escape from a taboo: Lobbyists and others are allowed to give gifts to legislators that, without this special provision in the law, would constitute illegal bribery.

Notice we aren't making any distinction between political parties, their associated consultants, lobbyists, or political advisers.  This is a bipartisan initiative.

If you go to a concert when lawmakers are in town, chances are good that you’ll see lawmakers there, many of them sitting with the lobbyists who paid for their tickets. You’ll also see some, to be fair, who just wanted to go to a concert and opened their own wallets to get there. Maybe they like music without the added perk of sitting next to someone who wants to sell them a public policy idea.

Entertainment opportunities abound in Austin while the 84th Legislature is in its regular session this year: Fleetwood Mac will be at the Erwin Center on March 1, and Stevie Wonder, Neil Diamond, The Who, Los Lobos, and Tony Bennett with Lady Gaga are all scheduled to perform in April.

When lobbyists file their reports every month, Texans are able to see how much money is being spent on this sort of thing, often without finding out who benefited. Lobbyists have to report all of their spending. They do not have to connect the names of lawmakers (or their immediate families) to the spending unless they go over a certain amount.

And while there's much more you should read at the second link above, this lets us segue into the reporting requirement contortions that the lobby class performs to avoid naming names.

You’ve split the check before, right? Gone into a restaurant with someone and cut the bill in half to share the expense?

That’s not how splitting works for lobbyists when Texas lawmakers and other state officials are at the table.

When lobbyists split the dinner tab at an expensive restaurant or after a pricey bottle of wine, it's not so the officeholders in attendance can pay their own share. It's so the lobbyists can stay under the state’s name-that-legislator limit.

Right now, that’s $90. If a lobbyist spends less than that amount entertaining a lawmaker, the lobbyist doesn’t have to name the lawmaker in the spending report filed with the Texas Ethics Commission. If it’s over $90, the names of the beneficiaries go in the reports, where the public can see them. 

Which is how we wind up with shit like this.

Don't try to read that; go here.  There's also a bigger version of that receipt embedded in the link in the following excerpt.

One lobbyist can spend $90, two can spend $180, three can spend $270 and so on. If the new numbers are approved, that jumps to $114, $228 and $342.

Sometimes it happens on a grand scale. At the end of the 2013 legislative session, a $22,241 dinner for the House Calendars Committee at an Austin steakhouse was paid for with 65 different credit cards. The tab indicated that 121 people were fed and watered, but does not detail how many of them were legislators. The attendees got the mix right, if the object was to hide the names of the lawmakers who were there. The lobbyists reported their spending — for most, it was $340.07 — but didn’t have to name their official guests. They apparently had enough state officials in attendance to keep each lobbyist’s spending per person under the name-the-legislator trigger.

Are you getting your money's worth from your state reps?  Do you believe your political contributions are being well invested?  Are we getting better government this way?  Are we even getting good government this way?

The excuses made for this sort of behavior include a mashup of: 'well, since legislators are only paid a small amount for their service, the per-diems have to be bigger, and besides they're lower than the IRS allows, so that's good'.

No, it isn't.  Only wealthy people can afford to serve in the Lege -- doctors, lawyers, business executives -- essentially the class of person who can afford to have a second home (even if it's just an apartment) to live in Austin while they take six months every two years away from their jobs.  Once upon a time these were mostly farmers and ranchers, of course.  Things have changed a little, but not all that much.  Texas is still ruled mostly by the 1%, has been nearly all of its existence.  The extremes have just gotten more, ah, extreme.

Is it any surprise then that Democratic voter turnout -- you know, the party that is at least supposed to pretend to be for the little guy -- has fallen to depths not seen since the Great Depression?  We can call the electorate dumb for failing to participate in the game, but they might be smart enough to have figured out that they're the ones being played.  If you were a Texan struggling to make ends meet, and you saw how the men and women who make your laws live, would you think you could have any influence in changing that by voting?

That's the thing about lawmakers — they can change the laws they don't want. Their conversation might sparkle, their looks might dazzle, but it is that power to change the state’s laws that makes them such attractive dinner companions.

Their efforts fall short sometimes, but you can tell a lot about what they think and believe by what they choose to debate and what changes they try to make. Even when they fail, there is a battle to tell the rest of us that someone, somewhere, thought there was something wrong with the existing order of things. But not here.

Property tax cuts, business tax cuts, campus carry, open carry, but not Medicaid expansion and no woman has the right to decide whether or not she will have a baby.  She's not even going to be able to get a cancer screening from Planned Parenthood if they have anything to say about it.  And don't try to stop those fracking wells down the block, and don't ban plastic bags at the supermarket.  Who do you think you are?

See, they really don't give a damn about you, and that's at least partly because you don't give enough of a damn to vote.  In other words, it's a catch-22.  Who's going to start giving a damn first?  I can assure you it won't be the members of the Lege or those catering to them.

Quick updates on Houston municipal elections

As we wait for Charles' manifesto...

-- Via Stace once more, the Democrats are crowding into AL1 (Costello, term-limited, running for mayor) and AL4 (Bradford, term-limited).

Laurie Robinson, Amanda Edwards and Larry Blackmon will all run for the at-large city council seat to be vacated by C.O. “Brad” Bradford, according to campaign treasurer designations filed in recent weeks.

Bradford, a former chief of the Houston Police Department, was elected to at-large position four in 2009 and is now term limited. The seat in recent years has been held by an African American.

Robinson, who leads a management consulting firm, lost her race for an at-large seat in 2011, and considered, but declined, a repeat run in 2013. Edwards is an associate at the law firm Bracewell and Giuliani, and Blackmon is a retired school teacher active in local politics.

The other open-seat at-large race more quickly drew names: Lane Lewis, chair of the Harris County Democratic Party; Houston Community College trustee Chris Oliver; Trebor Gordon, who successfully challenged Houston’s campaign blackout period; Philippe Nassif, a local Democratic activist; and Jenifer Rene Pool, a leader in Houston’s transgender community are all running to succeed Stephen Costello, who is running for mayor after being term limited.

Not mentioned here is the candidacy of Jan Clark, an attorney/Realtor and the vice-president of the Oak Forest Democrats, who purportedly intends to run in At-Large 5 against Jack Christie.

It seems a shame to let Kubosh in AL3 just skate back in; maybe somebody will grow a pair and take him on.  Christie seems notably the weakest incumbent on council after managing just 55% two years ago against two hapless Democrats (sorry, Noah's dad).

Update: Texpate expands a little on the above.

-- A rarely-cited source of local political news is Aubrey Taylor's blog; he's got the take on the three African American men bidding for mayor (Sylvester Turner, Ben Hall, and Sean Roberts).  HBCM is difficult to read because of its style and graphics, but he has insights into the black community not found elsewhere online.  Taylor sees some obstacles to Turner's front-running status at this early juncture, but goes out of his way to warn anybody from extrapolating that into his disfavoring the state representative's bid for mayor.

Methinks too much warning.

Noteworthy there is Congressman Al Green's early and second-time endorsement of Hall.  As a sidebar conversation, there's a lot that could be blogged about Representative Green (who represented me before 2010 redistricting).  My first falling-out with him was his support of the bankruptcy re-org legislation favored by the big banks in 2005; he's more recently voted in favor of the Keystone XL pipeline.  He might be best known outside of Houston for being a rail hog at SOTU speeches.

He's a big-time holy roller and probably has been friends with Hall since divinity school, the most likely motivation for his crossing the aisle and supporting this Republican in the mayor's race.  While he's been a decent liberal on many issues, including gay rights, when he slips occasionally, they're doozies.  Somebody needs to get the congressman on record in support of or in opposition to the city's equal rights ordinance, and contrast that with his support of Hall, who will no doubt be prevaricating on the topic again.

More as it develops.

Update: Marc Campos has crowned Bill King the monarch of potholes.  That's the best thing that guy has blogged in years.

Scott Walker isn't ready for prime time, and more Sweet '16

He has certainly peaked way too soon.

"You talk about leadership and you talk about big, bold, fresh ideas," she said, dispensing with his boilerplate. "What is your big, bold, fresh idea in Syria?"

The question should've prompted an admission that many geopolitical problems are unavoidably thorny – that there often isn't a "big, bold, fresh idea" that would solve them.

Instead this exchange followed...

Just go read the back-and-forth between Martha Raddatz and Walker, and the analysis that follows.  It was as bad watching and listening to it as it is reading the transcript, indeed somewhat worse.  He was in completely over his head, and it was the shallow end of the pool.

Think ABC and Raddatz, or The Atlantic, is "librul media"?  How about Forbes?

When Raddatz asked, “What would you do about the 11 million undocumented who are still here?,” Walker responded, “We for sure need to secure the border. I think we need to enforce the legal system. I’m not for amnesty, I’m not an advocate of the plans that have been pushed here in Washington… we need to find a way for people to have a legitimate legal immigration system in this country, and that doesn’t mean amnesty.”

Wow…how is it possible that nobody else has thought of securing the border? This is a new and bold idea.

And while he bravely suggested that we need to ‘find a way for people to have a legitimate legal immigration system in this country,” the whole idea of having bold, fresh and new ideas is to actually propose these big solutions—not remind us that “somebody” needs to “find a way.”

I did something I never do any longer: tuned in a Sunday Morning Talking Head Show to watch a specific interview.  My motivation was to look again at Walker and see if I had missed something; has he overcome the Droopy-looking, putzy, Midwesterner-who-dropped-out-of-college bit for a fresh, smartened-up presidential contending one?  Has he gotten some sort of charisma infusion?

The answers remain 'no he hasn't', and 'no he hasn't'.  It's difficult for me to believe that the GOP is capable of nominating someone far more ignorant in every single way than George W. Bush.  As blogged previously, he should have some staying power just because the turf he's staked out is unoccupied by three other Republican wannabees.  And the first debate that includes him and Rick Perry is going to be an instant classic for the guffaws and Twitter memes alone.  This might develop into some significant problem for him, but even if it doesn't, Walker simply isn't bright enough -- JMHO, of course -- to be vice president.

Unless he's on a stage between a row of corn stalks and cornpones, he's out of his element.

Update: No More Mister Nice Blog will keep an eye on him for me. As befits a man of low intelligence, he's got a few things memorized, and when he gets knocked off his script, he's lost.

-- Stupid isn't Chris Christie's actual problem.  He knows exactly what he's doing, and doesn't care that you know.  A Dale Carnegie course won't save his campaign, and neither will Romney's exit.  Some digging produced another example of his grifting, pandering ways, and when you ladle some of his trademark arrogance over the top of that... well, let's just say that he's going to be fun in the debates too, but the South ain't gonna vote for no fatass Yankee asshole.

-- Rand Paul is going to make contempt for the media a thing again.  Unlike Walker's foreign policy depth and Christie's anger management issues, this could be of some benefit to his ambitions.  But the case for more libertarianism is failing with the emerging 'debate' over 'vaccine choice'.

Even Rick Perry, for crying out loud, is smarter than this.  And Ben Carson, too.  The issue is still going to drop a few more aspiring presidential candidates into the hot, popping grease.  Hard for me to see how Paul avoids the fire as he eventually scrambles out of the frying pan.  The nostalgia of the conservatives for the 1950's does not extend to the understanding that childhood vaccines began to be mandated a hundred years earlier than that, and for obvious reasons.  The conservative base's contempt for science, logic, and facts notwithstanding -- and to be fair, an oddball collection of limousine neoliberals -- this nation isn't quite stupid enough yet (I think) to elect an anti-vaxxer.  If I'm wrong and it is, then we can stop worrying about climate change.  Contagion will cull the herd much faster.

-- The political consultant hot stove league has warmed up for Perry, and Ted Cruz as well.

A political firm that has been part of Perry's brain trust is aligning with former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush's likely campaign team. On Monday, two veteran GOP consultants, Danny Diaz and Jon Downs of the Washington-based firm FP1 Strategies, joined Bush's Right to Rise Leadership PAC, according to a CNN report.

The move raised eyebrows in Washington, because one of the firm's other founding partners, Terry Nelson, was part of a circle of advisers who aided Perry's effort at redemption after a lackluster 2012 presidential campaign, according to The Washington Post.

The positioning led some in the GOP consultant class to wonder if the firm would split alliances between the two camps.

That will not be the case, according to a statement from Nelson.

"We have great respect and admiration for Governor Rick Perry as a leader and as a person," Nelson said. "But FP1 has decided that our efforts going forward should be united in the event either Governors Perry or Bush decide to run.”

Nelson was an adviser to a nonprofit called Americans for Economic Freedom that is aligned with Perry advisers.

Here's a little about Rick Perry's money we should know.

Of the $103,537 that Rick PAC reported taking in between Nov. 25 and Dec. 31 of last year, a majority came from donors and their spouses who “maxed out,” or gave $5,000, the most federal law lets them donate to a PAC like Perry’s during a calendar year. Among those contributors are longtime Perry supporters such as Houston engineering executive James Dannenbaum, Houston investment adviser James Lee and former Astros owner Drayton McLane.

This is the only kind of TPS campaign finance reporting I have interest in: who's buying and who's selling whom.  (Ross Ramsey at the TexTrib is doing a bang-up job in this regard with respect to the Lege; more on that in a post to come.)  And here's the latest on the third Texas favorite son who wants to be president next year.

Cruz raised $100,000 for his PAC during the final five weeks of 2014 and spent just about as much to pay for its advisers, many of whom were hired in recent months as Cruz increased his travel to the country’s early-primary states. His joint fundraising committee, which gave about half of its proceeds to the PAC, collected $230,000 during that period.

His top political expenses continue to be Vincent Harris, a digital consultant who recently switched to join Rand Paul’s probable 2016 team; Jason Johnson, the Austin-based strategist credited with planning Cruz’ upset in his 2012 primary against David Dewhurst; and Lauren Lofstrom, a national fundraising consultant.

This past summer, Cruz beefed up his political shop by hiring Lofstrom, communications adviser Jason Miller and strategist Jeff Roe, who runs a direct-mail firm in Kansas City.

Keeping track of the puppeteers and the money they require to keep our political system corrupted is going to remain the focus of my efforts going forward.

The Weekly Wrangle

More than three-fifths of the Texas Progressive Alliance believe that the Seahawks should have handed off to Marshawn Lynch as it brings you this week's roundup.

Off the Kuff writes about opposition to the Plano equal rights ordinance from transgender activists, who say it excludes their community.

Libby Shaw, writing for Daily Kos, sounds the alarm bell on conservative lawmakers. When one touts one's conservative credentials, voters should never assume this means one is necessarily fiscally responsible, ethical or honest, in Conservative Texas: Cronies, Crooks, No-Bid Contracts, No Oversight, Junk Science.

WCNews at Eye on Williamson knows that Dan Patrick and the GOP are going to cut taxes no matter what, and need has nothing to do with it.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme is appalled at the racism coming from Texas Republican representatives to the US House and the Texas Legislature.

Bob Stein at Rice University's Baker Institute handicapped the Houston mayor's race much the same as PDiddie at Brains and Eggs did... two weeks ago.  And Dos Centavos posted the latest cheez.

Politicians love to talk about the economic skills gap -- where there are a lot of job opportunities out there, but not enough skilled workers to fill them. But thankfully as Texas Leftist learned, some Houston politicians are moving beyond the talk and working to actually address the issue. Plus, some big news for Texas musicians as we finally learn the fate of the Texas Music Office under Governor Abbott.

Neil at All People Have Value acknowledged the bad behavior of Texas conservatives inside and outside the Capitol last week, but also wondered when Texas Democrats would stand up in defense of justice and fairness.

Bluedaze documented the Texas earthquakes on Super Bowl Sunday.  Just the ones on that day.

Ted at jobsanger wanted to know if juvenile justice actually got better in Texas, or if that was just an illusion.

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

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

The TSTA Blog reminds us that "school choice" is not a choice for many families in Texas.

The Rivard Report predicts that driverless cars will not solve all of our traffic problems.

Texas Clean Air Matters urges the Legislature to restore clean air funding.

Keep Austin Wonky maps the decline of the capitol city's bus service.

Minding Houston explains 1115 waivers.

Mark Phariss implores the citizens of Plano not to reject its equal rights ordinance. Nell Gaither, on the other hand, argues that it excludes the transgender community.

Newsdesk explains how open carry advocates shot themselves in the foot.

Scott Braddock highlights another controversy connected to Michael Quinn Sullivan.

Unfair Park reports that the city of Fort Worth has extended spousal benefits to same-sex couples.

Burnt Orange Report takes note of the Tea Party under way in the Texas Senate, but not (yet) in the House.

Socratic Gadfly points out to Bernie Sanders that he's taking the wrong fork in the political road.

State Impact Texas noted that the financial markets are now betting on the Keystone XL pipeline.

And the TPA welcomes Diary of a Mad Trial Lawyer, the occasional observations of former judge Susan Criss, to the Tex-blogosphere.

Mittens is out of the clown car, but Miss Lindsey is in

We don't need to link to Governor 47%'s withdrawal, do we?  How about Governor 39%'s clarity?  Let's excerpt it anyway just for the laughs.

During an appearance on Fox News on Wednesday, former Gov. Rick Perry told host Sean Hannity that he realized how unprepared he was to run for president in 2012.

He started an "intensive program" in late 2012, he said, with domestic policy, foreign policy and monetary policy, "so when I stand on the stage and debate this next time, you're going to see a person who is very, very well prepared and able to talk across the board about the issues that the president of the United States is going to have to deal with as we go into 2017."

Perry had gone on the program to discuss the recent developments on his pending indictments, calling the case "a badge of honor."

Video at the link.  He's going for the Dan Quayle bump, for all you millennials who don't have a clue about scorn worn as a fashion accessory.  I'm anxious to change my Twitter avatar to this, but nah gah do it until Zombie Governor Oops gets another stake driven through his heart.

The real news is the heretofore stealth candidate coming out, Madam Senatah from the Grate State a Sou' Cahalina.

The already-crowded field of would-be Republican presidential candidates grew again on Thursday when Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) announced the formation of an exploratory committee for president.

The launch of the Security Through Strength committee enables Graham to raise money for a potential run. It’s the clearest sign yet that he is serious about entering the race, and comes as a flurry of White House aspirants are taking public and private steps toward entering what could be the most wide-open GOP primary in memory.

Graham is not regarded as a top-tier candidate by most Republicans and may run into problems because of some moderate views he holds.

'Moderate' once again being a relative term in this usage.

But he is known primarily as one of the GOP’s leading hawks on national security and represents an early nominating state, making him a potentially disruptive force in a fluid race. His positions on the use of U.S. force will probably put him at odds with at least one other prominent 2016 hopeful, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who represents the growing libertarian wing of the party.

There we go: a faceoff between the Teabagging warmongerers and the Teabagging isolationists.  It's Chris Kyle's world now in Dumbfuckistan (also known as the Deep South) and Graham Cracker sees an opening to exploit.

Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, another Republican making moves toward running, called Graham a “good man,” a “friend” and a “man of deep passions.”

Does it make anyone else's gaydar go off when sullen Republican white men talk about each other's passions?  Speaking of latent homosexuality, the thing to watch for at any GOP shindig over the next year -- and there will be one every other weekend, as we know -- is whether or not Rick Perry and Lindsey Graham are bunking in the same cabin.  (That link is probably NSF your W.)

Of course, Graham’s main problem is that he may have some skeletons rattling around in his, er, closet. His far-right opponents in last year’s GOP primary didn’t have any problems labeling him “ambiguously gay” and “a nancy boy.” Rumors about Graham on the verge of being outed pop up every once and a while, a phenomenon that will increase dramatically if he runs for president. Esquire political columnist Charles Pierce pointedly calls Graham Senator Huckleberry J. Butchmeup. (Graham’s official photo doesn’t do much to knock that nickname down.)

Needless to say, Graham insists he’s not gay. He’s done so by speculating about having a relationship with Ricky Martin, which is exactly the kind of thing that a red-blooded heterosexual would do.

I'm laughing so hard I'm coughing and choking.

Super Sunday Funnies

Scattershooting on the day after Texas Muslim Day

-- That went just about as well as anyone could have expected.  When a homeless woman from Michigan goes "on the road" to Austin to crash a peaceful rally, and doesn't get arrested, then you're excused in believing we've crossed another dangerous line here in Deep-In-The-Hearta.  What do you suppose would have happened if a black guy had grabbed the mic at an Open Carry protest?  What if a pro-choice activist had interrupted the pro-forced birth gathering on the other side of the Capitol last Saturday, who themselves were counter-protesting the anniversary of Roe v. Wade?

I'd rather just ignore the state representative who demanded visitors to her office pledge allegiance to the Israeli flag, if it's all the same to y'all.

That's not Lake Travis, that's the Rubicon.

Update: Christine Weick -- the angry white woman outside the Capitol yesterday -- is stretching her fifteen minutes of fame to the limit, now challenging Franklin Graham to take over a mosque.

-- This is Texas, goddammit, where the teachers have Glocks but we hide the science textbooks.  Our Republicans aren't snuffing the canaries in the coal mines with their gas; they're the fucking bats.  Shitting on everything as they swarm out of their caves.

-- Our beloved Texas, where we never shook until we got fracked.

North Texas never felt an earthquake until 2008, but since then the United States Geological Survey has recorded more than one hundred, concentrated in areas of oil and gas extraction from shale by hydraulic fracturing—fracking.

Now the USGS will raise the official earthquake risk level in Texas. The new assessment will appear on the government group's seismic hazard map, which influences building codes, public policy and insurance for homes and other buildings across the country, said Mark Petersen, national coordinator of the earthquake hazards program.

"Because of increased rates of earthquakes in Texas, the hazard is higher than it was previously," Petersen said. "This is a new thing that we want to start accounting for, these potentially induced earthquakes."

If you're a city, you can't pass a law against it.  Only the state government can do that, and they laugh at your attempts to stifle their oil buddies' waya life.  And if the feds would stop telling us how to spend the Medicaid billions we're leaving on the table, maybe we'd take the money.

-- Texas, our Texas, all hail the mighty state, where we must man the ramparts and barricades against the twin terrors of immigrant children and black people voting without ID.  We've evolved.  I mean, this is what intelligent design looks like.

So much love for fetuses, none for the babies already born.  You see, it transforms into a parasite on the hard-working, job-creating, property-owning upper class once it leaves the host.  Open carry coming soon, your all-season hunting license without having to purchase or even qualify for a license, and no bag limits.  Just be sure you're set to full auto and spray widely, before a good guy with a gun can pull his or hers.

One potential worthwhile outcome is that if every Texan is walking around armed, visible or not, we can do away with the police.  You know, save a bunch of money.  Oh wait, maybe we haven't thought that all the way through.  Like always.

Mutha. Fuggin. Texas.  The incubator of the best, most conservative government money can buy.

Paxton skates

Likely continues to do so, with a little help from his friends.

The Travis County district attorney’s office has concluded its investigation into securities law violations by Attorney General Ken Paxton without filing charges.

An investigation by the agency’s Public Integrity Unit determined that Travis County lacked jurisdiction over the Paxton allegations, District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg said Thursday.

“Any conduct that might constitute an offense occurred outside of Travis County, and venue for any further investigation would be in the county where the conduct occurred,” Lehmberg said in a statement.

Poor Lehmberg just couldn't stomach any more controversy.  She's been cowed by the spin applied from Rick Perry's legal team and the governor's supporters reacting to his abuse of office indictments, start to (eventual) finish.  A classic conservative display of blaming the victim.

Lehmberg’s office referred the case to prosecutors in Collin and Dallas counties, she added.

Care to guess how that's going to go?

Collin County District Attorney Greg Willis, a Republican, is a longtime friend of Paxton. Bill Dobiyanski, the first assistant district attorney under Willis and chief of the felony trial division in Collin County, declined to say whether the office would investigate the matter.

Dallas County District Attorney Susan Hawk has issued a statement indicating her office has no avenue to pursue a case against Paxton, if one were warranted.

She said that after a discussion with Gregg Cox, the head of Travis County special prosecutions, “at this time, we are not aware of having venue over any alleged crimes committed in Dallas County by Attorney General Ken Paxton.”

With the Public Integrity Unit gutted by the Lege's new budget and to be eventually relocated out of Travis County, there will be no watchdog left on the unitary rule of the Grand Old Party in Texas.  Not that there was all that much before.  When the appeals court judges are also bought and paid for, you can't even get a conviction against Tom DeLay for money laundering to stick.

This is what Texans voted for last November, however (and in every midterm election for at least the past twelve years).  This is also what the Texans who were too busy/lazy/stupid to vote also voted for, whether or not they will ever figure that out.

BakerBlog's Bob Stein on the Houston mayoral race

This is worth dissecting.

There are six candidates (former Democratic congressman Chris Bell; councilman Stephen Costello; Harris County Sheriff Adrian Garcia; former Kemah mayor Bill King; councilman Oliver Pennington; state Rep. Sylvester Turner) who currently hold or recently held elective office. A seventh candidate, Ben Hall, has run recently for mayor and has some additional recognition as a former city attorney. These candidates have a record of electoral success in the city as well as a record of significant campaign fund raising. 

He handicapped them much the same way I did week before last.  With regard to the money end of things, let's overlook the fact that Costello and Hall and King can write themselves a check for whatever they need, which technically isn't 'raising funds'.  And that Turner needs to survive Bell's lawsuit transferring his million bucks from his legislative bank account to a municipal one.  And that Garcia can't move his county coffers around at all.  If you evaluate viability on the basis of how much money somebody has, then you don't have a democracy, you have a plutocracy.  If you begin with the premise that the more money a candidate can spend, the more likely they are to get elected, then you have devalued principle, good governance, and the ideological issues that should be the primary determinant of how one should cast their ballot.  In other words, you simply aren't a fan of republican democracy.

I won't be evaluating mayoral candidates competing for my vote using that measurement.  I want to know what their ideas for managing the city are, not how fat their wallet is.  So while Stein is tossing everybody running who doesn't have electoral experience and putting a star beside the names of those who are profligate fundraisers, where does that leave perhaps the most liberal candidate -- Marty McVey -- who can pay his own way, or the most conservative -- CM Jack Christie -- who can't?  And the rest who meet neither criteria?  Why, on the outside looking in.

Too bad for them... and too bad for those of us who thought the race might turn on the issues, too.

The best financed candidates and those who have effective organizations able to identify and turn out their loyal and likely voters will most likely move forward to the runoff. It also seems unlikely that issues or partisanship will be critical factors in the general election — though this should change in the runoff, depending on which two candidates move forward. I would expect the candidates in the general election to run campaigns directed at frequent and targeted voter contacts, using traditional door-to-door canvassing, extensive social media and very personalized appeals to voters from the candidates. I don’t see a significant incentive for candidates to attack each other in the general election, as this might detract from their efforts to mobilize their base and worse, risk losing supporters in the runoff, should they advance.

Are you enthused yet?  This is going to be a milquetoast election if Stein is right.

Thankfully, he's probably wrong.

From conservatives, it's going to be all about those hellbound transsexuals using the bathrooms where your children will be assaulted (when it's not bitching about potholes in the roads, anyway) and tsk-tsking those hateful bigots from the center-left in response.  There will be plenty of issues, just not the ones we ought to be talking about.  And to Stein's credit, he's at least correct that it won't goose turnout much, if at all.  So then, twenty million dollars-plus spent on campaign advisers, mailers, and tv commercials for a runoff election in December that resets everything.  That's some high-priced sound and fury signifying nothing.

Candidate-wise, Stein has some breakdowns for the six perceived frontrunners, but let's focus on his comments about Adrian Garcia.

Garcia could have broad appeal to several constituencies of likely voters, i.e., Hispanics and Democrats. In addition, he has won two countywide elections for sheriff, winning significant (12 percent) crossover support from Republican voters, although this success appears to be limited to non-city portions of the county. He did not garner a substantial crossover vote in Kingwood, Clear Lake and Westside precincts inside the city.

For Garcia, the key questions are whether he can establish himself as the “Democrat” candidate for mayor and mobilize Hispanic voters. His efforts to establish himself as the prime Democrat in the race maybe thwarted by Bell’s efforts to make the same claim. In addition, Garcia’s only tepid support of the countywide candidates in 2014, most notably Kim Ogg, Democrat for district attorney, may come back to haunt. Moreover, there is evidence that younger Hispanic voters are not motivated by partisan candidate appeals — witness their poor performance for the Democratic ticket in 2014 (i.e., pre- and post-election surveys suggest 45 percent of 18-44 year old Hispanic voters balloted for Greg Abbott while only 34 percent of Hispanic voters over 45 voted for Abbott).

Emphasis mine.  Garcia's success hinges on his ability to turn out all the Latino vote, and depending on that has always been problematic.  If the electorate doesn't agree that it's their time, his campaign is over before it begins.  Anglo Republicans in the 'burbs haven't bought his oddball brand of conservatism previously; no reason to think they will this time around.

Texpatriate's on record with Turner and Pennington making the runoff, which is a fairly conservative bet.  I'm not ready to join him there; I think Bell and Costello and Hall will also have strong efforts.  There's still seven months to the filing deadline; a long time to go before the field settles out.  And this last, with respect to the SCOTUS decision on marriage equality and the HERO trial playing out in the background.

There may be several referenda on the ballot to amend the city charter (e.g., term limits and revenue cap) as well as repeal the recently adopted Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO). A jury trial is underway to determine whether the city erred in rejecting a petition to place the repeal of HERO on the November ballot. Whatever the jury’s decision, it will certainly be appealed. If any of these items are on the November ballot they are certain to change the character and possible outcome of the general election. The HERO amendment has the greater potential for widening the field of candidates with the entry of an anti-HERO candidate. Other candidates, notably Turner, King and Costello, may have trouble with this issue, as many of their core supporters have positions on the ordinance at variance with the candidates’ position.

This is Pennington's primary advantage today: stoking the fear and loathing of the gays among the Republican base.  It could help him in the general election and then backfire on him in the runoff.  We'll just have to watch and see if that is something he -- or someone else -- thinks they can capitalize on.