The Weekly Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance roots for underdogs even to the detriment of its own brackets as it brings you this week's roundup.

Off the Kuff argues against having a state spending cap, much less making it tighter.

Libby Shaw, writing for Texas Kaos and contributing to Daily Kos, makes a solid case as to Why The Right is so Wrong given the last few weeks of national political events.

The Poop Cruz is now boarding and ready to set sail, announces PDiddie at Brains and Eggs. Or is that 'shove off'?

Neil at All People Have Value saw the real spirit of Texas at the Houston Livestock Show & Rodeo. APHV is part of NeilAquino.com.

The Lewsiville Texan Journal posts the schedule of townhall meetings along the corridor of the I-35 express project, between Denton County and Dallas County.

Egberto Willies passed along the crackdown by CA Gov. Jerry Brown -- whose state has about a year's worth of water remaining -- on Ted Cruz for his climate change denial.

Bluedaze issues the marching orders to Austin and the Texas Lege in order to save your city from being fracked.

And Texas Vox points out that despite Gov. Abbott's call for ethics reform, the legislature is poised to vote on the "Corrupt Incumbent Official Indemnification Act" today.

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

The Independent Political Report links to the Longview (TX) News-Journal regarding the Gregg County Libertarian Party, and their hosting of Rep. David Simpson discussing his pro-marijuana legalization bill.

Grits for Breakfast takes note of the Texas state bar's accusations of misconduct against the prosecutor of Cameron Todd Willingham, in his roundup of criminal justice stories from last week.

Concerned Citizens wants to hear voices of support for San Antonio mayoral candidates.

Socratic Gadfly asked state legislators: "Replace the business franchise tax with what?"

Somervell County Salon begged Democrats to please give her someone to vote for besides Hillary Clinton.

The Rag Blog mourns the passing of Austin activist/street vendor Charlie Saulsberry.

Carol Morgan wryly observes that March Madness in the state's capital has nothing to do with college basketball (particularly when all Texas teams were eliminated on the first day of the NCAA tournament).

Better Texas Blog calls the latest effort to restrict spending in the Legislature a really bad idea.

Michael Barajas says to stop calling Houston a "sanctuary city".

Texas Clean Air Matters rounds up the energy, water, and climate bills in the 84th Legislature.

The Texas Election Law Blog highlights systemic issues documented in Battleground Texas' post-election report.

Free Press Houston, reporting from SXSW, has a movie review of the documentary Disaster Playground, about real efforts to deal with the potential calamity of an asteroid hitting the Earth.

Finally, Isiah Carey's Factor links to his video on what you should know before you donate to crowd-funding appeals.

Poop Cruz now boarding, ready to set sail

Or is it shove off?

Sen. Ted Cruz plans to announce Monday that he will run for president of the United States, according to his senior advisers, accelerating his already rapid three-year rise from a tea party insurgent in Texas into a divisive political force in Washington.

Cruz, scheduled to speak Monday at a convocation ceremony at Liberty University in Virginia, will not form an exploratory committee but rather launch a presidential bid outright, said advisers with direct knowledge of his plans, who spoke on condition of anonymity because an official announcement had not been made yet. They say he is done exploring and is now ready to become the first Republican presidential candidate.

Over the course of the primary campaign, Cruz will aim to raise between $40 million and $50 million, according to advisers, and dominate with the same tea party voters who supported his underdog senate campaign in 2012.

Since the Republican nominee is likely to need something closer to half a b-b-billion dollars to make 2016's run credible -- and Cruz cannot get to that number; even Sheldon Adelson thinks he's too crazy to be the nominee -- there's another agenda here, and Teddy Schleifer reveals it.

But the key to victory, Cruz advisers believe, is to be the second choice of enough voters in the party's libertarian and social conservative wings to cobble together a coalition to defeat the chosen candidate of the Republican establishment.

A floor fight at the national convention.  There's the really fun part, y'all.  Can you imagine the hilarity -- I used that word purposely -- when their arguments turn into gunfights?  Predicted headline: "Shootout at the RNC Convention". You heard it here first.

Todd Gillman at the Dallas News got out just ahead of Teddy, but without confirming it.  Thus the 'if' leading this analysis.

If Cruz does launch his campaign at Liberty, it would reflect the degree to which he is pinning his hopes on support from the Christian right. He also has strong ties to tea partiers, and has pitched himself as a full-spectrum conservative, able to appeal to those seeking a fiscal conservative and muscular foreign policy.

He wouldn’t be the only one. Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum also will rely on evangelicals as they vie to survive long enough to face the victor from the party’s so-called establishment wing. Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor and son and brother of presidents, has a huge fund-raising edge, though at this early stage, many voters favor Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.

Polling that appears around this time next week should be divined for its effect on the front-Walker as much as what it tells us about Cruz, who has bumped around the bottom of the polls conducted to this point.

I just can't wait for the fireworks.  And the gunfire.  And the explosions.

Update: More from Crooks and Liars.

Sunday Funnies

Scattershooting things I'm reading

-- 2016 will be the Meerkat election.

So today, or maybe yesterday, is the day that Meerkat officially became the social media tool of the 2016 presidential election. The iPhone application, which allows Twitter users to stream live video footage to their followers, debuted at South By Southwest last week and has now firmly caught on with politicians and political reporters. It's not just the kids. Jeb Bush is meerkating. Dan Balz is meerkating. This is happening.

Dan Pfeiffer, the former senior Obama aide, was in Austin for South By Southwest this year and was quite smitten: "Everywhere I have gone here at South by Southwest... people are talking about Meerkat. And if that same discussion is not happening at every media outlet and presidential campaign around the country, they are making a huge mistake," he wrote on Wednesday. "If 2004 was about Meetup, 2008 was about Facebook, and 2012 was about Twitter, 2016 is going to be about Meerkat (or something just like it)."

-- Yes, domestic violence is an epidemic.  Has been for... ever.

The number of American troops killed in Afghanistan and Iraq between 2001 and 2012 was 6,488. The number of American women who were murdered by current or ex male partners during that time was 11,766. That's nearly double the amount of casualties lost during war.

Women are much more likely to be victims of intimate partner violence with 85 percent of domestic abuse victims being women and 15 percent men. Too many women have been held captive by domestic violence -- whether through physical abuse, financial abuse, emotional abuse or a combination of all three.

We are inundated with news stories about domestic violence , from athletes beating their significant others in public elevators or in their own homes to celebrities publicly abusing their girlfriends. This problem is not one that will go away quickly or quietly.

As Domestic Violence Awareness Month comes to an end, discussions about intimate partner abuse and its horrible repercussions should not. In an attempt to illustrate the gravity of abuse all genders (but largely women) face in the U.S., we rounded up 30 statistics on domestic violence. 

I had to take my anti-nausea medication, but I got through the entire article.

-- More photos of our national moral stain are on the way.

A federal judge ruled on Friday that the U.S. government must release photographs showing the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and other sites.

Judge Alvin Hellerstein in Manhattan ruled that his order would not take effect for 60 days to give the U.S. Department of Defense time to decide whether to appeal.

The order is a victory for the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed a lawsuit against the government in 2004 seeking the release of the photographs.

"The photos are crucial to the public record," ACLU deputy legal director Jameel Jaffer said in a news release. "They're the best evidence of what took place in the military's detention centers, and their disclosure would help the public better understand the implications of some of the Bush administration's policies."

The Department of Defense did not immediately return an email seeking comment.

There are more than 2000 of these pictures, which means the ones we have seen before amount to less than one-tenth of the total.  And that's just the evidence of torture and abuse that was photographically documented.

US war criminals are still on the loose.

-- Bernie Sanders, who will make a "campaign" appearance in Austin on the last day of March, will offer to amend the Republican budget, calling for an income tax surcharge on the wealthiest among us -- millionaires -- in order to finance increases in defense spending and the next military aggression (read: Iran).

The “war tax” will be one of the first Sanders will introduce during the vote-a-rama next week. During the back-to-back votes, senators are allowed to submit an unlimited amount of amendments.

“The Republicans took us into protracted wars in Afghanistan and Iraq — and ran up our national debt by trillions because they chose not to pay for those wars. Instead, they put the cost of those wars on our national credit card,” Sanders said in a statement Friday.

[...]

“Wars are enormously expensive, not only in terms of human life and suffering, but in terms of the budget. If the Republicans want another war in the Mideast, they are going to have to tell the American people how much it will cost them and how it will be paid for,” he said. 

You want a war, Louie?  Your credit is declined.  Cash in advance.

-- A Wisconsin federal judge has overturned the law there that requires doctors performing abortions to have hospital admitting privileges.  You may recall that in Texas, it's law now and remains so by virtue of the 5th Circuit.  So we have another American freedom -- that of a woman's right to choose whether or not she will give birth -- on its way, eventually, to the Supreme Court.

AMERICA FUCK YEAH! doesn't just apply to guns, after all.

The other Garcia running for mayor

Chuy, in Chicago.  From the evening of February 24th, after he made the runoff against the incumbent, Rahm Emanuel.

We the people have spoken. Not the people with the money and the power and the connections. Not the giant corporations.

The big-money special interests. The hedge funds...who poured tens of millions of dollars into the mayor's campaign. They've had their say for too long. But today, the rest of us had something to say.

We've got six weeks of hard work ahead of us -- and believe me, these big-money interests are going to throw everything they got at us. They run this town and they're not gonna give up easy. But we're gonna fight...we're gonna win.

When Garcia's campaign manager was asked how his candidate could be outspent 12-1 and still force a runoff, he replied, "Money can't buy you love."

During his first term as Chicago mayor, Emanuel privatized some public schools and closed others, went hammer-and-tong after teachers, appointed his cronies to boards and commissions, and essentially declared war on all things -- people and ideas -- progressive.  This is his history: while he was chief of staff in Obama's White House, Emanuel was credited ("discredited" is a better word, IMO) with killing the public option for healthcare reform.

As a city alderman, Jesus "Chuy" Garcia fought so hard against Chicago's machine politics that then-Mayor Richard M. Daley made kicking him off the city council a top political priority. The same sort of thing -- making enemies of powerful interests -- happened when he served in Springfield, IL as a state senator.  As a Cook County commissioner, he helped balance their mess of a budget while lowering taxes.  He has aligned himself with those who hold to account the 1% and the corporations who buy our politicians and muck up our political system.

On both sides of the aisle.

Night before last, on St. Paddy's, the two men had a debate.  This account makes it seem as if the moderator -- a fixture in Chicago journalism -- was the winner.

Without any doubt, the winner of the first one-on-one debate between Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and his challenger, Cook County Commissioner Jesus “Chuy” Garcia, was its oh-no-you-don’t moderator, Carol Marin. Setting aside the near-historic sight of a 66-year-old woman on television, the TV and print news veteran won the night by brooking a minimum of blah-blah, and jumping in front of various filibusters: “Let’s go back four years,’’ Emanuel began, when asked how to close the Chicago Public Schools’ billion-dollar deficit. “No, let’s not,’’ Marin said crisply.

As she isn’t on the ballot, though, in the city’s April 7 mayoral runoff, voters must choose between an insurgent who’s been cast as such a sweet guy he might have a marshmallow center, and a famously profane incumbent who has lost support over crime, school closings, and revenue-producing red-light traffic cameras.

Sounds like it was great fun.  It's still steeply uphill for the challenger, though.

The fact that there even is a runoff has humbled Emanuel and embarrassed the president he served as chief of staff in their own town. It has excited those Chicagoans who’d love to see the city elect its first Hispanic mayor, and secretly pleased even some who see Garcia’s run as quixotic, but aren’t what you’d call heartbroken to watch their sometimes abrasive mayor have to work for his reelection against an opponent with a fraction of the funds and name recognition.

A recent Chicago Tribune poll showed Emanuel leading his challenger, 51 to 37, but Garcia supporters are hoping that turnout by those too turned-off to come out for the original vote on Feb. 24, when few thought Garcia had a chance, will swing the runoff his way. If yard signs are any indication, Garcia will do well in the president’s old neighborhood, Hyde Park.

Go finish up; it's well-written.

There are so many parallels to Houston's Garcia, and so many polar opposites between the two that it's hard to measure them with modern technology.  One example: Chuy is running against those terrible red-light cameras -- a Republican peeve a few years ago in H-Town, you will recall -- the removal of which would blow an even bigger hole in Chicago's budget than they already have.

Let's establish that Rahmbo, an internationally renowned asshole, is likely to return to office.  A vote for Emanuel would represent not just a vote for crony capitalistic scorched-earth politicos, but a vote for continuing and extending the CIA-modeled police state tactics that have been revealed in the Windy City, and on display in too many other municipal police departments around the country.

Update: Another Garcia from Chicago, cartoonist Eric J.

A narrow loss for Emanuel would represent a nascent progressive revolution of sorts.  And the media would rush to project ramifications large and small for Hillary Clinton in 2016.

So let's at least hope that our mayoral tilt is as fun as the one they're having in That Toddlin' Town.  And finally, let's watch closely to see if the Bayou City's Garcia can be as successful -- so far -- as Chicago's.  Maybe even return to his Democratic roots a little (if he can't actually be progressive, in other words) for the sake of politics and elections.  Wouldn't that be something to see.

An open letter to, and some questions for, Adrian Garcia

Congratulations on your (alleged) decision to run for mayor of Houston.  And hey, sorry about posting that false start a month ago.  Once you do declare, I know that many will cheer, and some will complain; I will do neither.  I have not made up my mind who I might vote for and support, but I am fairly certain today that it will not be you in the general election this fall.  No hard feelings, best of luck in your bid for office.

As a public service to inform the 10-15% of Houston voters who will be participating in November's municipal elections, I respectfully request your response to the following questions.  You may comment here or e-mail me; I would ask that your responses be in writing and on the record.  At this time it is unnecessary for you or one of your advisers to call me, as I have a hearing impediment that has rendered telephone call conversations all but worthless.  (That hopefully changes in the near future, but for the present time I'm in read-only mode.)

You may respond on your own timetable, as I understand and appreciate the fact that you must resign your position as Sheriff of Harris County once you officially announce your mayoral campaign, and that conversations about that might force your resignation sooner than you would wish.  The ramifications of giving up your office to seek another is its own story, which isn't necessary to discuss at this time.  But speaking of that...

-- May I ask how you will support your family while you run for mayor?  Giving up your day job isn't so difficult for your extravagantly wealthy competitors for mayor; those that aren't wildly rich can continue with their law firms or engineering firms or brokerage firms in a reduced capacity, and little or no reduced compensation.

That's not the case with you, unless there's something I don't know.  As far as I can tell, you're a working Joe much like 99% of Houston's residents.  As an HPD beat cop, city councilman, and now the county's top law enforcement officer -- jobs that pay well, but don't exactly put you on Easy Street -- it looks like you've been making ends meet, maybe a little better.  But can you afford not having a paycheck for six or seven months?  Also regarding money, you're not going into the contest with a large campaign warchest, and absolutely not in comparison to others already hosting lavish fundraisers and the like.  So by all appearances you'll be running a fairly populist campaign, at least as compared to half a dozen other mayoral hopefuls.  That's something I admire and have respect for, if you know anything about what I have written here over the past decade.

If you're not going to be "funemployed" while you bid for chief at City Hall, do you have a job lined up?  Is someone going to hire you -- I'll speculate "security consultant" at 10-12K monthly -- that expects some return on their investment if you get elected mayor?  And perhaps most importantly: do you think it's appropriate for you to disclose to the voters any or all of these details?

-- May I ask about your political affiliation?  I realize you have been elected as a Democrat a couple of times now, and am also quite familiar with the non-partisan nature of Houston municipal elections and the perils of "jungle" elections.  Your previous statements -- the ones where you refer to yourself as 'getting more conservative as you have gotten older' -- coupled with your support of the now-defunct Secure Communities program (much more of a Republican priority than a Democratic one) would suggest that if you still consider yourself a Democrat, you appear to be a very, very conservative one, sort of in the mold of one of your loudest supporters and Rick Perry's attorney of record, Tony Buzbee.  By the way: is Buzbee still a Democrat or has he become a Republican?  Or, as with so many other Houston One-Percenters... does he work and play on both sides of the street?

-- What is your plan associated with the expectation that Latinos will need to turn out in historic numbers to elect you, as you said a few months ago?  I realize it's the goal, and every effort will be expended to do that, but why do you think you'll be able to re-write the record books in this regard?  What makes you more special than, say, Tony Sanchez in 2002, or Maria Luisa Alvarado in 2006, or Linda Chavez-Thompson in 2010, or Leticia Van de Putte in 2014?  Lots of Democratic hopes and dreams have been dashed on the shoals of 'increased Latino voter turnout' for many years now.  Even Ruy Teixeira, who co-authored that 2004 book that said it was all but inevitable -- and then offered another promising tea leaf again in 2013, while diversifying his "diversity" message to economic issues -- was, like all Democrats, forced to eat a large serving of crow while sitting in the wreckage of 2014.

Every Democrat in Texas, and maybe the nation, would like to know what the secret is for increasing Latino turnout beyond having a Latino surname.  (And nobody wants to hire Marc Campos just to learn if he is full of shit about knowing the secret, or not.)

So precisely what -- or as close to 'precise' as you are comfortable revealing -- are you planning to do in order to make history?

I'm sure I'll have more questions once you declare, but one thing I won't do much of is criticize your decision to hand the sheriff's office back to a Republican, or point out some of the office's shortcomings or deficiencies under your administration.  There will be plenty of others who will choose to do that.  I'll also not harp on your lack of college degree.  I have blogged in the recent past that was a deal-breaker for me, just as it would be if I were a Republican considering a vote for Scott Walker.  But I'm going to mute that criticism, even though there are many reasons why conservatives hate college and Democrats value education, as the Texas Lege is demonstrating once again.

In the meantime, I will wait patiently for your responses, to me personally or to the Houston electorate generally.  Again, good luck to you with your campaign.

City Hall goings-on: pensions, agendas, and scuttlebutt

Update: Multiple sources confirm this evening that county sheriff Adrian Garcia will enter the race for mayor, possibly within the next month.

Original post (with updates throughout):

 -- To review: The tension surrounding the city of Houston's negotiations with its firefighters over pension obligations culminated with an agreement a couple of weeks ago.  That was viewed as half a loaf by some of the Republicans on Council.  There was a brief tussle between Rep. Sylvester Turner -- who boosted his cred by brokering the deal -- and the Houston Chronicle editorial board over the value and impact of those efforts.

While that was going on, state Rep. Jim Murphy (a Republican from the affluent west side of town) managed to Bigfoot the pact with a legislative counter-proposal that Houston's municipal conservative coalition rallied behind.

Then a week ago, the pension showdown escalated when some of the more impudent members of council -- most of which are not trying to call attention to their mayoral election campaigns, mind you -- used an obscure procedure to call a meeting for last Friday and air their views.

(T)he symbolism of the meeting is more significant than any action that could be taken, given that the group will simply consider registering support for or opposition to the pension deal.

Regardless, Parker's liaison to council, William-Paul Thomas, said he will work against a quorum. Parker had said she would not put the deal to a council vote because it does not call for the expenditure of city funds.

That is what happened: C.O. Bradford, the wheelman in this caper, got overly authoritative and two of the more liberal council members stood up and walked away, denying the rebels their right to vote or send a message or whatever.

Near the end of Friday's meeting, Councilman David Robinson moved to delay the vote to "facilitate broader discussion" and consider the impact of several related bills being filed in Austin. Councilman C.O. Bradford, chairing the meeting, ruled that action out of order because he felt it was important to send lawmakers a message before the deadline to file bills, and a delay would render the vote moot.

Robinson then gathered his papers and left the dais, joined by Councilwoman Ellen Cohen, breaking the quorum needed to vote.

This revealed some agendas, hidden and otherwise.

One: WTF was C.O. Bradford doing running this show?  Is he bidding for political office in 2016, or currying favor with the right-wing again?  Or both?

Two: While "Stone Cold" Steve Costello and Oliver "Twisted" Pennington were out of sight at City Hall last week,  they weren't silent about Murphy's Proposed Law undercutting the city's pension agreement with the firemen.  From Teddy Schleifer's "Horseshoe" this week (which I keep telling you to subscribe to):

Costello and Pennington came out quickly in support of the Murphy bill, with Costello saying he “played a role in crafting this bill.” The Greater Houston Partnership encouraged Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick to support the local control bill, calling the compromise agreement “more patchwork.” Read the letter.

Local control is a good thing, especially when Greg Abbott is against it.  So as Ted pointed out...

(Murphy’s bill) would give all cities in Texas the ability to negotiate directly with their pension boards, which has long been an ambition of Mayor Annise Parker.

Parker is now in the awkward position of not actively lobbying for a bill she has sought: “Best of luck,” a Parker spokeswoman said.

The problem here is when you ask Dan Patrick to weigh in on anything, because he's going to hide some rattlesnakes in it somewhere.  Nobody wants Patrick, or Paul Bettencourt for that matter, appointing themselves quasi-mayor of Houston and all else they survey.  Makes your skin crawl, doesn't it?  All they really want to do is undermine Mayor Parker.  That's all this is about, no matter what else gets said or done.  Parker Derangement Syndrome.

The hell with Patrick, Bettencourt, the GHP and Bradford and all of these other conservative poopy heads.  Get elected mayor or pound sand.

-- Pothole King Bill is also jousting with Stone Cold over what he derisively refers to as the rain tax.  Teddy S, once again.

NAME-DROP: King on Stephen Costello to KRIV’s Greg Groogan on drainage fee: “I heard Councilman Costello say on the radio the other day that people just need to be patient for six or seven years and the money will be there, but excuse me if I am skeptical that the money will really be there.” Full interview. 
 
NOT BACKING DOWN: Costello, for his part, forcefully defended the drainage fee and ReBuild Houston at his campaign launch last week. Keep your eyes on this King-Costello battle for the middle.

“Make no mistake: While this was a big step in the right direction, it was also just the start," Costello told supporters. "All you have to do is try to navigate your way through the neighborhood around potholes and daily traffic backups in your own neighborhood to know that this is not good enough." 

King has got to take votes away from Costello to have a chance at beating both he and Pennington to make the runoff.  So yes, watch how they spar with each other.  Only one of those three will be left standing after the first Tuesday in November.  And Pennington's wrapping up the "true conservative" caucus.

-- Via Schleifer and 'Horseshoe' once more: is anybody else a little ashamed by the fact that LVDP -- running for San Antonio mayor -- is fundraising in Houston?  On the other hand, just imagine how much of this outside-the-box money-grubbing you might see if there were real, actual limits on campaign contributions.  Tin-cupping and panhandling worse than at your local Walmart's parking lot.  Bake sales and American flag invoices might do the trick, too.  "Cupcakes for Costello!"  "Buy a churro, support Adrian Garcia!"

At least these guys would be able to show some small donor support.  That is Costello's real problem: he can't find anything to sell in River Oaks that they want to buy for less than $1000.  No support behind that dude except for the very, very rich.  Look at his campaign finance reports.  (This might be the only time I ever write those words.)

With a hard, low spending cap -- one Charles might be able to support -- all those buttons, stickers, pens and pencils, rulers, combs, etc. would cost you a dollar.  Hell, they want to get a $5 'donation' from you now for a bumper sticker and a yard sign, so why not?  If Obama can ask you to chip in three bucks, why can't the candidates who are unable to write themselves a check, or collect 250 large in one night -- or both -- do so?  It would give the non-1% contenders a shot, at least.

Attorney Sean Roberts, another potential candidate, tells the Chronicle: “I expect to make a decision before the end of the month.”

It sure wouldn't restore any grace to our political process, but it's still a better option than letting the wealthy buy them all off.