Matt Drudge and Martin O'Malley

(What?  You were expecting some Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, or Mike Huckabee?)

As Cillizza at the WaPo notes, Drudge made his bones on the Clintons twenty years ago.  The problem is that he continues to do so, and the lazy corporate media lets him keep doing it by sniffing his ass like he's a dog in heat.  You may need to click over to catch up on the backstory;  this news is now a week old, which means it was out there before the rumors broke about Bernie Sanders' announcement on Tuesday, and then Sanders' fairly dominant news cycle (from Thursday, the day he declared, to the coverage about his campaign cash haul, and all the way through to the Sunday talk shows).  Because of last week's many other breaking developments -- but particularly due to the Baltimore, Maryland connection -- Drudge's pimping of O'Malley hasn't registered in the plus column yet for the former Terrapin State governor.

As usual you should read it all, but here's the last three grafs.

And it's not just that Drudge is deciding what pieces of content from the biggest media outlets in the country are the ones that get attention/traffic. It's also that he remains extremely influential as a sort of daily booking guide for cable television.  Bookers from every network check Drudge religiously to see what stories he's chosen to feature. Often those stories wind up getting airtime.

So, if Drudge promotes Martin O'Malley, then O'Malley will almost certainly get more attention from the media, which should translate to a higher level of interest — or at least recognition — among average voters.

How long will O'Malley's Drudge honeymoon last? Probably up until (or, really, if) Drudge succeeds in helping to make O'Malley a semi-credible Clinton challenger. At which point, if history is any guide, Drudge will turn on him.

I think the honeymoon is already over, for reasons previously ascribed.  But if it isn't, and you start to see shirtless O'Malley pics on Good Morning America and the like, just know who's behind it.

A message to all Houston mayoral candidates

At the end of this piece from the inimitable Charles Pierce about Bernie Sanders, there's an excellent message for everyone running -- and considering a run -- for mayor of Houston.

To establish: the last Socialist to be elected mayor of a major American city was a fellow named Frank P. Zeidler, who served as mayor of Milwaukee, Wisconsin in 1948 and was re-elected twice, holding that office until 1960.  He was actually the third of three Socialists elected Milwaukee mayor in the first half of the last century.  Zeidler won his first election in 1938, as Milwaukee County Surveyor, on the Progressive Party line, as a Bull Moose liberal.  Now here's the relevant part.

Once I heard (Zeidler) say that, when he was coming up, what made you a socialist was the fact that you believed your city should fix potholes and that it should have a fire department.

Is anybody calling Bill King a socialist because he wants to fix the potholes?  A few people are labeling Steve Costello that, derogatorily of course, because he supported a fee that would go to repairing the drainage infrastructure of the city.  A few more are calling Sylvester Turner a socialist because of his efforts to make sure our firefighters aren't impoverished in their retirement.  But those are all the same people who have been calling Barack Obama a "soshulist" for the last six years, who marked John Cornyn a RINO (and re-elected him anyway), and who believe that the US Army is preparing for an armed occupation of rural Texas.  So perhaps their judgment, not to mention their definition of 'socialist', is questionable.

But if or when a member of the Harris County Green Party or the Houston Socialist Workers Party or even the Houston Communist Party declares for mayor in 2015, try to keep in mind what actual leftists want to do, because it's the very same thing the Republicans and conservatives want: to fix the potholes and have a fire department.

Now the police, the roles they are supposed to serve in our community versus their original intent... maybe liberals and conservatives still have a difference of opinion on that.

The Weekly Wrangle

In a week filled with presidential campaign developments, a death in Baltimore followed by the arrest of six police officers charged in that death, the birth of a royal baby, a few high-profile sporting events, and even a blockbuster opening weekend for "Avengers: Age of Ultron"... the Texas Progressive Alliance would like to wish everyone a Happy Star Wars Day as it brings you this week's roundup of the best of the Texas left from last week.

Off the Kuff rounded up coverage of the voter ID appellate hearing at the Fifth Circuit last week.

Libby Shaw, at Texas Kaos and contributing to Daily Kos, weighs in on the overall disgust for the Texas governor's cowardice: The CT Freaks Win: TX GOV Panders to Paranoia.

Socratic Gadfly wonders if, given this was not the first outbreak -- and having other information about the Food and Drug Administration from whistleblower Ken Kendrick and more -- if we can really trust the FDA that much when it claims Blue Bell and other ice creams are safe.

Nonsequiteuse calls on Rep. Todd Smith and any other reasonable Republicans left in Texas to come collect their party.

Texas Vox documents the vote on the latest assault on the environment and local control, and Bluedaze blogs about the most recent frackquakes in North Texas... and in Austin.

Bernie Sanders declared for the Democratic nomination for president, and not even the events of Baltimore could keep him from extending his news cycle through the weekend. PDiddie at Brains and Eggs reports on the money part of the equation in the opening days of his campaign, and wonders if the stark differences between he and Hillary Clinton might actually produce a meaningful primary contest.

McBlogger points out what is really hurting Hillary Clinton.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme wonders why so many Texas Republicans act to enable rapists.

From WCNews at Eye on Williamson: Hooray, Obamacare is working! The Good News About Healthcare In Texas For Everyone But Republicans.

Neil at All People Have Value said as shameful as Governor Abbott is to pander to the Jade Helm paranoia, there are in fact serious reasons people believe crazy things. APHV is part of NeilAquino.com.

And Dos Centavos collected some of the worst logo ideas for Cinco de Mayo.

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

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

HISD Trustee Anna Eastman explains her standardized testing philosophy.

The Texas Election Law Blog previews the arguments in the voter ID appeal.

In a flip-the-script, the Texas attorney general gets sued by the Houston Community College System over its disclosure of public records.  Hair Balls has the story.

Quoting the 2015 Teacher of the Year, the TSTA Blog says we do not separate people into groups that are more deserving than others.

Unfair Park and Paradise in Hell both wonder why Greg Abbott is giving comfort to the tinfoil hat crowd. Harold Cook may have the best explanation for it, and RG Ratcliffe joins the fun.

Grits for Breakfast has a summary of the good criminal justice bills still moving through the Texas Legislature.

Andrea Grimes notes that the Lege has coughed up 32 more anti-choice bills this session, and a few might still be passed.

Trail Blazers posted that several of the bills removing restrictions on marijuana use in Texas have gone up in smoke.

Texas Watch excoriates the Senate for choosing insurance company profits over families and businesses.

Mean Green Cougar Red gives his thoughts on the proposed I-45 rebuild in Houston.

Mari Aguirre-Rodriguez demonstrates some of the tools and technologies that a modern campaign can use.

The Rag Blog is hosting a happy hour in Austin this Saturday, with guests Jim Hightower and Ellen Sweets, author of "Stirring It Up with Molly Ivins".

The Quintessential Curmudgeon takes on the Amarillo city council (again).

Fascist Dyke Motors recaps her blog's story to this point, and adds a warning that it is coming to an end.

And Prairie Weather asks: are men really just cowards?

Left, right, left, right

Bernie Sanders is already doing what everyone expected was the most he could do.

Even without a high-profile challenger in her way -- and in part to prevent one from jumping in -- Clinton has been moving left. What's remarkable about her shift is that it's occurring even at a time when her approval ratings within the Democratic Party are strongest among self-described liberals. She's shoring up the base now, moving from constituency to constituency.

That paragraph was written after Sanders' entry last Thursday.  He raised more money in the first 24 hours of his campaign announcement than any of the other declareds.

(Sanders) kicked off his dark horse campaign for the Democratic nomination on Thursday with an email to supporters and a press conference outside the U.S. Capitol. Since then, more than 100,000 people signed up for the campaign and 35,000 people donated money, according to a campaign press release.  The average donation was $43.54.

Sanders' 24-hour fundraising haul puts him ahead of what every currently declared Republican presidential hopeful posted in their first day.

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul's campaign announced that it had raised $800,000 a day in. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz's campaign raised $1 million in the first 24-hours of its existence. And Florida Sen. Marco Rubio's campaign raised $1.25 million in its first day.

The only other Democrat in the race -- former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton -- did not announce what her campaign raised in its first 24 hours and declined to do so on Friday.

Gee, I wonder why.

Of course, even humble-bragging about the money (note the average donation amount again, above in the excerpt) might be a little, teensy part of the money-in-politics problem.  For Democrats who have now aligned themselves with the benefits of Citizens United... hey, Hillary all the way.

When the ruling was handed down, Democrats were outraged, and Hillary Clinton herself has recently suggested she wants it overturned. Yet with revelations that firms with business before Clinton's State Department donated to her foundation and paid her husband, Clinton's campaign and rank-and-file Democratic activists are suddenly championing the Citizens United theory.

In campaign statements and talking points—and in activists' tweets and Facebook comments—the party seems to be collectively saying that without evidence of any explicit quid pro quo, all the Clinton cash is acceptable. Moreover, the inference seems to be that the revelations aren't even newsworthy because, in the words of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, “there’s nothing new” here.

"Nothing to see here, move along."

— While Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, Bill Clinton was paid $2.5 million by 13 corporations that lobbied the State Department. Ten of the firms paid him in the same three-month reporting period that they were lobbying Hillary Clinton's agency. Several of them received State Department contracts, worth a total of almost $40 million.

— Hillary Clinton switched her position to back a controversial U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement as millions of dollars flowed into her foundation from an oil company operating in Colombia, and that company’s founder. Amid reports of violence against Colombian unionists, she also certified Colombia's human rights record, thereby releasing U.S. aid to the Colombian military.

— Hillary Clinton's State Department delivered contracts and a prestigious human rights award to a technology firm that donated to the Clinton Foundation—despite allegations from human rights groups that the firm sold technology to the Chinese government that helped the regime commit human rights violations.

The same Democratic Party that slammed the Bush-Halliburton relationship now suggests that this type of behavior is fine and dandy, as long as there wasn't, say, an email detailing an explicit cash-for-policy trade. The insinuation also seems to be that journalists shouldn't even be reporting on any of it, if there is no such email.

Is it morally acceptable for firms to pay a public official's spouse while those firms are getting government contracts from the agency headed by that same public official? That’s a matter of opinion, and if the Democrats want to now champion the ideology behind Citizens United, that’s their right.

Right.  So please stand over there, Democrats.  No, farther to the right.

You'll be hearing a lot of yellow dogs call themselves progressive in the coming months, but be clear that if they're saying they are voting for Clinton, then they've mislabled themselves.  Deceiving themselves certainly, maybe even trying to deceive others.  Pay attention to that as Secretary Clinton makes the rounds of constituencies on her latest listening tour, telling people what they want to hear.  In these early days, judging them by their past works, and not their recent words, is the best lesson they have demonstrated as to who they really are.

See?  Even an atheist knows there's something you can use in your life from the Bible.

Sunday Funnies, justice edition

Or is it just us?

A festive Baltimore rallies in hope after six police officers charged

"Donde esta la chancla?!"

Don't feed the conservo-trolls, Abbott

Operation Jade Helm 15, ladies and gentlemen.

Greg Abbott's letter directing the Texas State Guard to monitor U.S. Army soldiers taking part in training exercises in Bastrop and other parts of the state drew widespread surprise and criticism from Austin to Washington on Wednesday as pundits and officials questioned what the governor was thinking.

While Abbott's aides played down the move as a normal step to tamp down some Bastrop residents' concerns that the military exercises presaged an invasion and a disarming of the populace by the federal government, some state lawmakers and even the White House were asking what Abbott was worried about.

"I have no idea what he's thinking," White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said in response to a reporter's question about Abbott's letter to the Texas Guard the day before.

I won't be able to say this very often, but I know what Abbott is thinking: throw the foamy-mouthed right wing freaks some red meat, or else Dan Patrick will, and that might eventually lead to a defeat in a Republican primary for Texas governor.  Glenn Smith had a better response.

"Abbott's pandering to paranoid, secessionist fools would be comical if it wasn't so costly and frightening," said Glenn Smith, director of Austin-based Progress Texas PAC, a Democratic Party group.

"Abbott has the state military confronting the U.S. military because some nut cases fear, what, armed U.S. takeover of Texas? Seriously? What next? Will Abbott call out the troops to protect us from alien abduction, abominable snowmen and Bigfoot, or should I say an invasion of Bigfeet? What will this bit of extremist theater cost Texas taxpayers? Abbott should tell us. Now."

You don't have to be a veterinarian to know what happens when you let rabies go unchecked.

Within hours after Abbott's directive was made public on Tuesday, online applause and protests heated up anew. Self-styled "patriot" group members suggested they may monitor the exercises on their own.

Abbott aides said the swirling issues and concerns were one reason he asked the Texas Guard to monitor the exercises, not any concern that any of the conspiracy theories may be valid.

"Governor Abbott deeply trusts and respects the United States military," said Amelia Chasse, Abbott's press secretary.

But.

Bo Collier, 61, a retired environmental engineer who was among the protesters at the Bastrop meeting, said Abbott was spot on with his order.

"(Abbott) knows we can't trust anything Washington says," Collier said. "Think about this, sir: The federal government has militarized our police. They want to do away with the Second Amendment. I believe this is a step to gain intelligence for martial law at some point in the future. You may call me crazy, but just wait, the signs are there."

The signs do indeed say you're nuts, Bo.  Governor Abbott thanks you for standing (somewhere) near him at this time of "crisis".

Update: Story done gone national.  And there is one lonely Republican voice of reason (again).

In his letter to the governor, Todd Smith of Euless, who retired from public office in 2013, said he is "horrified that I have to choose between the possibility that my Governor actually believes this stuff and the possibility that my Governor doesn't have the backbone to stand up to those who do."

He said he wrote because the thought that the U.S. military would be a threat to Texas is "embarrassing" and it is important "to rational governance that thinking Republicans call you out on it."

"Is there ANYBODY who is going to stand up to this radical nonsense that is a cancer on our State and our Party?" Smith asked.

That would be 'no', Rep. Smith.

This Week in Paradigm Shifts

-- After I bitched loudly about Texas House Democrats voting for HB 40 -- the bill that overturns Denton's ban on fracking and prevents other cities from doing the same -- a few Democrats let their conscience be their guide and changed their votes from aye to nay.  Specifically: Sylvester Turner, Dawnna Dukes, Jessica Farrar, Helen Giddings, Ruth Jones McClendon, and Ron Reynolds.  My representative, Borris Miles, made himself scarce (he was 'absent').  Freshmen representatives Diego Bernal and Marisa Marquez switched from a no and an absent to yes.  I have to think some money was involved.

But the most inexplicable flip-flop, no to yes, was Trey Martinez Fischer.  El Jefe stepped in some BS.  And it stinks.  Real bad.

Is it a paradigm shift or just bragging when legislators listen to constituents' complaints and change their vote?  Certainly neither in the case of the two rookie reps listed.

Speaking of money, the vote to roll back the state sales tax was unanimous.  Eye on Williamson questions why  Democrats just really don't want to distinguish themselves all that much from Republicans.  I don't ask myself that any longer.

Update: The Children's Defense Fund of Texas speaks for me (bold is theirs).

“The tax cuts passed today in the Texas House are irresponsible and shortsighted. Instead of offering Texas families pocket change and political rhetoric our elected leaders should be shoring up the foundation of our state’s future – its children.

“It is unacceptable that Texas still ranks among the bottom ten states in overall child well-being and state spending per resident, two indicators that are directly connected in that ‘you get what you don’t pay for.’ If you do the math, our top leaders appear to be more interested in prioritizing tax breaks for the wealthiest Texans and corporations than investing in the health and well-being of our children and families.

“We are further distressed that the House would consider such deep reductions to its revenue stream while our state is standing on the brink of a health care crisis. In the last 24 months, ten rural Texas hospitals have been forced to shut their doors because state leaders have chosen not to invest in our state’s health care systems by rejecting billions in available Medicaid funds to cover more of our state’s uninsured.

“These tax cuts are a solution in search of a problem. Texas already ranks in the bottom ten states in overall taxes paid by its people and businesses. Texans don't need lower taxes, we need wise investments in our future, and that future demands that we invest in children and families.”

-- In New York's Eleventh Congressional District, the Southern Brooklyn Democratic Club endorsed the Green candidate, James Lane, in the special election to be held next week to replace Republican Michael Grimm, who resigned after pleading guilty to tax evasion.  This club also previously endorsed the Greens' Howie Hawkins for governor of New York, over incumbent Democrat Andrew Cuomo.

Those are my kind of Democrats.  The sad part is that the only poll conducted in the race was a hypothetical in January, and it showed the Republican with 48%, 20 points more than the Democrat who declined to run.

Only a paradigm shift there if all Democrats get behind Lane.  Speaking of which...

-- Via Egberto Willies, Dan Aronson with "Changing the Conversation", and his first part is appropriately titled: "Defeating False Paradigms".  You start at the beginning...

Premise: The battle that rages between Democrat and Republican supporters is killing any chance of reclaiming a democracy that is of, by, and for The People – and both parties love it.

And I'll cut to the end.

...(T)his is exactly the way the framers of our Constitution drew it up and not the way the process works today. George Washington fully understood the ways that political parties corrupt democracy. In his farewell address, he warned:

“They [political parties] serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community.”
 
This leads us to the understanding of why, if democracy is to work for everyone, we must unshackle our loyalties to party and ideology, and instead work to elect those who do what is in the best interest of The People, just as was intended. The question is; do the majority of Americans have the will and the willingness to make such a paradigm shift? The answer to this question, perhaps more than any other is likely to shape the next chapter in American history. Will it be more of the same, where those at the top extend their death grip on wealth and opportunity? Or will a more fair America, a more equal America, and a more decent America emerge? While it is quite likely that we will not see the rebirth of the American Dream, at least in our lifetimes, as Americans for Americans, we can do better — and we can do better right now.

The fork in the road is coming up fast.

Bernie Sanders for President

No coronation, and hopefully no cakewalk for Clinton.  Vermont Public Radio:

VPR News has learned from several sources that Independent U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders will announce his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination on Thursday.

Sanders will release a short statement on that day and then hold a major campaign kickoff in Vermont in several weeks.

We're about to see the separation of the Democrats from the progressives.  Last month, Bloomberg pointed out the small discrepancy in his message and actually getting elected: he's got to ask for money, and raise a lot of it, to be taken seriously in the media.

Much of Bernie Sanders' career is centered around his disgust for money in politics. He hates the fact of it, hates its effects, and, naturally, he has deep disdain for the process of raising it. The bigger the number, the more contempt he has. “I don’t do these fundraisers for $100,000 apiece or $10,000,” the Vermont senator, a self-described independent socialist, spat in his heavy Brooklyn accent during a recent speech to the National Press Club. “I don’t know anybody who has that kind of money!” His average contribution, he humble-bragged, is $45.

Now he’s thinking about running for president, in what is shaping up to be the most expensive election in history, likely exceeding 2012’s total of $2.6 billion. There is madness in Sanders’ crusade. But the madness itself is part of the method. Sanders aims to be the personification of the small but vocal movement trying to beat back the increasing political influence of millionaires and billionaires. The cornerstones of his stump speech: Wealth inequality is ruining the country. Climate change is real. And big money pollutes politics.

Supporting this mission will take, of course, money. His political advisers think he can be viewed as a legitimate candidate if he raises $50 million ahead of first-round primary contests in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. Victories in any of those states, which he has already started visiting, would give him credibility as a real alternative to likely Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, the thinking goes, and knock loose enough financial support to get his candidacy into the bigger states. Admittedly, a lot has to go right for Sanders—or wrong for Clinton.

Read all of that piece.  Beyond the money conversation -- Socratic Gadfly doesn't like him much for many other reasons -- Sanders is... well, old.  Seventy-three years old (Clinton is 67).  He's also, as everyone knows, well to the left of where the Democratic Party has been since, oh maybe George McGovern or Hubert Humphrey.

In short, there's lots of reasons why he's a longshot.  But I'll support him as far as he goes and as long as he lasts, because his philosophy needs a public hearing, and it gives me an even greater opportunity to figure out just how far right the Democrats are going in 2016.  It's going to expose a lot of people who have been masquerading behind "progressive", misusing the word to advance their very not-progressive interests, and that absolutely needs to happen.

Actual progressives who have abandoned the centrist, corporate, conservative Democratic party might even re-enter the fray.  It could send a little shiver up the spine of a few hedge fund managers, some big CEOs, and more than a few state and local activists.  Get on board with what the Democratic party once stood for, before it veered right in the first Clinton administration... or stay on board with Hillary.

Can't think of party more in need of separating the stooges from the base.  The Republicans have been undergoing this exercise for six years, and it doesn't seem to be hurting them much, after all.

Update: More from Vox.

Update II: The HuffPo poll aggregate has Sanders trailing Clinton by 55 points.  In order, it's Hillary at 61, Warren at 12, Biden with 11, then Sanders at 6, O'Malley at just under 2, Jim Webb with 1, and Brian Schweitzer at 0.0.  No emails from Bold Progressives with the name 'Warren' in the subject line as yet.

Scattershooting the Lege and legal things

-- Kuff wrote the post I intended to write on the opening arguments at the Fifth Circuit on Texas' odious photo ID law.  Everything you need to know -- and the links you need to click on -- is there.  Update: Here's what I wrote last September about Texas and photo ID.

Update (4/29): And Hair Balls and the TexTrib were on the scene for the arguments.

-- People are excited about the SCOTUS hearings on the gay marriage cases, but frankly that's going to be as dramatic as falling down for Christianist doom-and-gloomers.  God would be real mad at them, and not LGBT people who want to get married... if there were actually a God, of course.  Here's six things you need to know about the case, and I've excerpted from the end of #5 and all of #6.

It’s impossible to know how any justice will vote, but here, as in so many areas, it seems highly likely that everything will turn on the vote of Justice Anthony Kennedy. And the plaintiffs have reason to be hopeful here: Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion in Windsor, as well as two important, earlier gay rights decisions -- one in 1996 and one in 2003.

6) When will we learn what the court has decided, and what are the potential decisions? What will the various outcomes actually mean in real terms?

SHAW: I’d guess we’ll know in the very last week of the term, perhaps even the very last day -- at the end of June. This is a hugely important decision, and it’ll come down to the wire.

I would guess Justice Roberts breaks with the conservative Catholic minority (in this case) and joins Kennedy and the liberal majority, making it 6-3.  As a private attorney almost twenty years ago, Roberts worked on a case advocating against discrimination based on sexual orientation.  And that case, Romer v. Evans, prevailed on a 6-3 SCOTUS vote (the dissenters were Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas).

It is all but a done deal.

Update:  A couple of court interpreters at today's arguments dramatically read some ominous tea leaves, but the TXGOP in the Lege is already plotting ways around approval.

-- State Sen. Kirk Watson's bills -- requiring disclosure by lawmakers of their wining and dining expenses by lobbyists -- suddenly woke from their slumber and started to move yesterday.

(Watson) had complained that he was beginning to hear the “death rattle” on Senate Bills 585 and 586 after they sat bottled up for several weeks in the Senate State Affairs Committee.

But he got a public hearing on Monday, and the committee voted the bills out unanimously.

“I’m real gratified,” Watson said. “It continues to move this conversation that needs to happen and is part of the governor’s goals for the session.” Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, has said he wants to "dedicate this session to ethics reform."

We'll see what happens, but when there are so many bills dying in committee at this point of the session, it's nice to see some glimmer of hope for government accountability.  Update: Here's what I blogged previously about lobbyists' food and bar tabs.  Legislators already got a per-diem increase this session.

-- Here's what else is on Dan Patrick's and Joe Straus' priority list: The budget (good comparison chart between Senate and House versions here), state contract reform, education, energy and environment, ethics, guns, healthcare, immigration and border security (some are withering on the vine), tax cuts, transportation, and veterans' affairs.  Go to the first link and find your issue, the bills associated with it, and their status.

It's nut-cutting time with about five weeks to go to Sine Die, on June 1.

"Mercy Killers"

Other performances scheduled in Austin and Fort Worth in May.

The Weekly Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance really hopes that Blue Bell can recover as it brings you the blog post roundup from last week.

Off the Kuff cheered on the latest effort by the federal government to force the state of Texas to expand Medicaid already.

Libby Shaw, at Texas Kaos and contributing to Daily Kos wants voters to know that voting for mean and stupid people, or not voting at all, has consequences, because Texas' refusal to expand Medicaid may Result in higher premiums for the insured.

From WCNews at Eye on Williamson: The "big three" had a breakfast brouhaha this week and Dan Patrick got his feelings hurt. Hurt Feelings and Thin Skin - Session's Getting Good.

Socratic Gadfly listed three numbers to remember — 67, 3, $10 — in 2016 elections.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme noticed a few cases of Texas law officers allegedly acting inappropriately here and here. These cases should be rare, not a daily occurrence.

Even the lawyer who argued -- and won -- the Citizens United case at the Supreme Court five years ago thinks our political system is broken.  But his solutions for it involve removing even more of what remains of the tattered restrictions on financial contributions, and if you want to know the specifics, "you'll have to pay him for that".  PDiddie at Brains and Eggs knows that this kind of mercenary political adviser is as large a part of the problem as the money itself.

Neil at All People Have Value says it seems there are more reasons than ever for people and corporations to break and ignore our laws. All People Have Value is part of NeilAquino.com.

Texas Vox points out that the polluter protection bill is headed for a vote in the Texas House. 

Nonsequiteuse wants you to watch the video, or read the transcript, of Rep. Jessica Farrar's declaration that she will not yield while Republicans deny Texans human rights and dignity.

Early voting begins today in Lewisville's municipal elections, reports the Texan-Journal, and Stace at Dos Centavos reports on the Alief bond initiative and the special election for AISD 4.

And jobsanger shoots down ten of the NRA's pro-gun myths.

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

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

"Mercy Killers", a one-man play about a moving love story and a fearless look at health care in America, comes to Texas this month and next.  Michael Milligan’s blue collar “Joe” is forced to re-examine his red state ideals as he faces wrenching choices in the care of his beloved wife.  The Rag Blog has details on the Austin performance, and there are three shows scheduled in Houston at the end of this week.

Somervell County Salon reminds her former state representative, Ag Commissioner Sid Miller, that not everyone in Texas wants their children to be unhealthy little fatties.

Carol Morgan observes that when the Tea Party's ignorance aligns itself with power in the Texas Lege, you get a session full of gun bills, restrictions on women's health, tax cuts, vouchers, and more tax cuts.

Randy Bear, recently relocated to Arkansas, explains how that state managed to avoid Indiana-ing itself.

The Texas Election Law Blog calls for executive action to mitigate the damage being done to voting rights by the Supreme Court.

Lone Star Q knocks Sen. Donna Campbell for an amazingly hypocritical Facebook status update.

The TSTA Blog says a voucher bill is a voucher bill no matter what its proponents want to call it.

Raise Your Hand Texas presented its testimony against said voucher bill.

Paradise In Hell wonders if the "Texas Miracle" was based on anything other than high oil prices.

Better Texas Blog explains just what the federal government's threat to discontinue the uncompensated care waiver unless Texas expands Medicaid is all about.

Equality Texas urges the city of San Antonio to take seriously the task of enforcing its non-discrimination ordinance.

Diary of a Mad Trial Lawyer asks: are we a Christian nation if it is a crime to help people and pets?

Green Party's Altgelt wins Laredo council at-large seat

George Altgelt was the Texas Green Party's nominee for statewide judicial office in 2014.  Last August, he sponsored a petition to have the sitting Laredo city council at-large 7 representative, Jorge Vera, recalled.  The petition was certified and Vera was removed from office by the voters last November.  (Vera pleaded guilty to charges of drug possession and filing a false police report in February of this year.)

Altgelt and a few others ran for the vacant seat in the special election in March.  He defeated a Latino challenger Hector Patiño yesterday in the runoff, 58-42.  *Update: Altgelt's mother is Latina, so insinuation on my part -- or inference by the reader -- that the contest was a Caucasian versus a Latino is regrettable.

This news is obviously quite remarkable on several levels.  Most interesting to me from a macro perspective is the flourishing of the Green Party in Laredo over the past few years.  There's something going on down there -- what it is ain't exactly clear to me yet -- and portends some nascent (a word I've used a lot lately) hope for progressive change in Texas.

The Texas Green Party holds its 2015 statewide meeting in June, in Tarrant County.