Nobody wins GOP food fight

Trump met high expectations for bombast and blather, Rubio and Kasich got good marks for steady demeanors and answers, the rest failed to stand out (even Paul and Christie's nasty exchange wasn't all that).  Bush underwhelmed.

The Donald chokes on his own saliva.

What's wrong with this picture below, besides the obvious fact that there is only one demographic represented (as always at GOP debates)?  Like an NBAer who hits a clutch three, they're all looking for Godot after that "Jesus" question.

There were a lot of "I caught a fish once, and it was THIS big', Jesus-on-the-cross poses.

And they ran long, so everybody switched over to Jon Stewart's "Daily Show" finale.

Some photos from the JV Happy Hour kid's table debate

Courtesy NYT live-blog.  Click on 'em for bigger views.

Yes, that's the live audience, about 30 minutes in.

From both the Twitter feed and the Times' coverage, it seems that Carly Fiorina did herself the most good.  The rest, not so much.  George Will is currently spinning it out for Fox viewers as it just concluded, so I changed the channel.  The main event begins in about 2.5 hours.

A 2016 roundup, just in time for the debate tonight

From my days as a newspaper advertising salesman, I always appreciated the "Just In Time For Christmas!" taglines that stores would use in their Yuletide spots.  (Usually all inappropriately capitalized, just like that.)  So here we go with an aggre-update on all that's been going on with the prezidenchuls during that time of year when the media likes to say that no one is paying attention (thanks to Bernie Goldberg for a blast from the past).

Some teasers, links, and an excerpt or two.

-- Megyn Kelly of Fox, one of tonight's debate moderators, got trolled intensely on Twitter yesterday and it was glorious.  Want to join in the fun?  Here you go.

-- Sorry Hillary fans, those email server questions just aren't going away.  And her polling numbers are sliding like a kid in a cardboard box downhill on ice.  You're going to have to start dealing with that.

In the past month, Hillary Clinton’s key voter support (such as white women) is plummeting. Even her key supporters are now having difficulty justifying her political and corporate lifestyle.

According to a recent WSJ poll, Hillary’s favorability rating among white women has fallen from 44% in June to 34% in July. Her unfavorable rating increased from 43% in June to 53% in July. In the first three months of this year, suburban women had a positive view of Hillary by a margin of 18 points. In July, these same women have a negative view of Hillary by a 5 point margin.

The trend can also be seen among independents. In the first quarter of the year, independents were about evenly split in their perception of Hillary. By July, 27% had a positive opinion, compared to 52% who had a negative opinion.

Even Hillary’s perception among African Americans is beginning to falter. In June, 81% of blacks had a positive opinion of Hillary. In July, this number fell to 66%.

In June Hillary’s lead over Bernie Sanders was 75% to 15%. In July her lead was down to 59% to 25%.

There is a reason Joe Biden will enter this race, and it’s because the Democratic Party knows Hillary is in trouble.

Whether Biden gets in or stays out, Clinton still has a problem.  It's one of yin and yang.  Here's the good news: the Daily Kos not-a-scientific poll has her closing a 15-point gap between her and the front-runner, Bernie Sanders.  So don't give up hope just yet.

-- While Clinton won't say whether she supports or opposes Keystone XL, Sanders will go to Liberty University (that's where Ted Cruz kicked off his campaign). This is another example of the vast differences between the two campaigns: one runs not to lose, while the other runs with nothing to lose.  People see and understand that difference.

Of all the tough questions he might get, immigration issues might be the toughest.  Read both Dos Centavos and Vox for more on this.

-- Bill Clinton pulled a Frank Underwood, quietly encouraging Donald Trump to enter the race for the GOP nomination two months ago.  Just not in those exact words.

Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.

[...]

Trump took the call from his office in Trump Tower in New York, according to the four allies, who requested anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly. The call came as Trump was making a final decision about whether to run, and he was candid about his political ambitions and his potential interest in seeking the White House during the talk, these allies said.

The 42nd president listened intently and then analyzed Trump’s prospects and his desire to rouse the GOP base, the Trump allies said.

The tone of the call was informal, and Clinton never urged Trump to run, the four people said. Rather, they said, Clinton sounded curious about Trump’s moves toward a presidential bid and told Trump that he was striking a chord with frustrated conservatives and was a rising force on the right.

One person with knowledge of Clinton’s end of the call said the former president was upbeat and encouraging during the conversation, which occurred as Trump was speaking out about GOP politics and his prescriptions for the nation.

Give the Big Dog his props: he saw the potential of what we are now calling the Trump phenomenon, and stoked it.  If you think the Republicans have a chance at the White House next year, you're as delusional as a Republican comes.

-- Speaking of delusional Republicans, their first debate is finally here, on your teevee this evening.  Rand Paul is fading, Ted Cruz is (or isn't) cooking bacon with a machine gun, Trump is Trump, Mike Huckabee's working diligently to come up with some wildly inappropriate statements to add to his list, and then there's Fat Bastard Christie.  How do low-talkers Rubio, Bush, Ben Carson, Scott Walker, and John Kasich actually break through the sure-to-come lunacy of those five with some rotten red meat for the base?  The nation will be tuning in to see, that's for sure.

Poor Rick Perry, stuck at the kid's table in the early matinee with Bobby Jindal, Carly Fiorina, Rick Santorum, George Pataki, Lindsey Graham, and Jim Gilmore.  The glasses just aren't resonating with GOP primary voters.  Looking intelligent ain't all it's cracked up to be with this crowd.

-- Last, the fact-checkers tonight will be going into overtime.  You can count on lies, dissembling, obfuscation, and prevarication.  And that's when we're not forced to listen to the racism, bigotry, misogyny, and screeching about Planned Parenthood and "baby-killing".

Here are five of the worst things some of the debaters have said and done so far, and here's five myths about taxes we are certain to hear repeated.

On 50th anniversary of Voting Rights Act, 5th Circuit strikes down Texas photo ID law

It's not quite the full victory those of us who support voting rights wanted, but it's probably the best we can get from the Fifth Circuit.  Headlines first and then some expert analysis.

Texas’ four-year-old voter ID law violates the Voting Rights Act but is not a “poll tax” barred under the U.S. Constitution, a federal appeals court has ruled.

The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday ruled that the Texas voter ID law has a “discriminatory effect” that violates the federal law that prohibits racial discrimination in voting, but it is not an unconstitutional “poll tax.” 

The ruling, which came one day before the Voting Rights Act turned 50 years old, was a narrow victory for critics of the Texas law. It prolonged a long-winding legal battle over legislation that some called the strictest in the nation.

The three-judge panel's unanimous decision sent the case back to a lower court, which will decide how Texas should fix its problems. But for now, the law stands as is.

Remanding the 'discriminatory' question back to Judge Ramos isn't a bad thing either, though that decision will likely be appealed by whoever is going to be filing lawsuits against Obama and the feds while Ken Paxton sits in jail.

In October, U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos of Corpus Christi ruled that Texas' voter ID law “constitutes an unconstitutional poll tax.” The state appealed the ruling to the 5th Circuit, arguing that the law improves ballot security and prevents election fraud. The 5th Circuit heard arguments in April.

Ramos found clear racial disparities between those who have IDs under SB 14 and those who do not, and she said the law continued a legacy of state-sponsored discrimination in Texas.

Wednesday’s opinion upheld those findings.

But -- and it's a big butt -- for the moment, the ID law remains in effect.

“It did not 'impose a material requirement solely on those who refuse[d]' to pay a poll tax, as proscribed by the Twenty-Fourth Amendment,” Haynes wrote in the ruling. “Rather, it drew from the State’s power to set voter qualifications by requiring all voters to present a valid form of photo identification at the polls.”

Citing that finding — and the fact that the law remains in effect for now — Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton called the ruling a victory for the state’s right to protect the integrity of its elections.

"To protect the integrity of our elections".  With the same stubborn determination accorded the denial of climate science, the state of Texas has yet to acknowledge the Fifth Circuit's ruling.  From Joseph B. Kulhavy at the Texas Election Law blog, yesterday...

I find it troubling that the 5th Circuit remanded on the question as to whether the Texas picture I.D. law had a racially discriminatory purpose. Still, it’s at least a nail in the coffin of one of the worst voter suppression laws in the country.

Notice anything strange about these websites?

http://www.votetexas.gov/

http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/index.shtml

That’s right – there’s not the slightest mention of the 5th Circuit’s decision. That’s quite a contrast from back when Shelby County v. Holder came out; (within two hours of that decision two years ago, there were notices plastered all over the Secretary of State’s website announcing that the State was doubling down on its special brand of violating voter’s rights and instantly applying the discredited voter ID law).

If a voter relied on the Texas Secretary of State’s website for information, they would think that it was all business as usual; http://www.votetexas.gov informs voters that a “picture I.D. is now required to vote.”

But you say, “Well, Joe, that’s kind of unfair. I mean … there’s all that HTML coding to do, and it’s after business hours, and …”

The decision came out at lunchtime. That’s six hours ago.

After all, the Texas Attorney General had time to put something up on that agency’s website.

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/attorney-general-paxton-statement-on-voter-id-ruling

What the … ? “Texas Voter ID Law to Remain In Effect”

Oh my god.

That’s embarrassing.

That’s really embarrassing.

I guess the A.G. takes the position that because the 5th Circuit remanded on the issue of intentional discrimination, the fact that the court upheld the trial court determination that the law is freakin’ illegal and unenforceable is somehow sprinkled with magic appellate fairy dust.

Then again, the following disclaimer should be prominently displayed and attached to all press statements made by the Texas Attorney General.

“Please note that the opinions of the Attorney General are those of an individual currently under indictment for three felonies involving acts of intentional fraud. Therefore, proceed with caution.”

So what next?

How Texas will respond to the decision is unclear. It has several options, Rick Hasen, an elections expert at the University of California, Irvine School of Law, wrote Wednesday in (his Election Law) blog post.

The state could ask that the 5th Circuit rehear the case "en banc," which means with the entire court present as opposed to a three-judge panel. Or it could appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. Perhaps less likely, Texas could see how the case plays out again in the district court.

If the district court reviews the case once more, it could still rule that Texas intentionally discriminated in enacting law, but it must find new grounds for saying so.

Hasen wrote that the decision seemed written “as narrowly as possible to still give a victory to the plaintiffs,” but still called it a "significant victory for Voting Rights plaintiffs and the Department of Justice."

Still too early to celebrate; this will drag out a while longer, perhaps even to the presidential election next year.  But we take our victories where can find them here in Texas, and this is one, no matter what Greg Abbott, Dan Patrick, or Paxton may think.

Update:

Texas’ statement on Wednesday's decision offered no hint of its next move other than that the state would "continue to fight" for the law. The state could appeal en banc, meaning to the all the justices on the 5th Circuit, or it could skip straight to the Supreme Court.

(University of Kentucky College of Law professor Joshua) Douglas, who previously clerked for the 5th Circuit, says it’s more likely Texas will chose the latter, as the unanimous three-judge decision was written by Justice Catharina Haynes, a moderate conservative who was appointed by President George W. Bush.

“The fact that she wrote the opinion -- which means she would almost definitely not vote to take it en banc -- makes the en banc vote in the 5th Circuit harder,” Douglas said.

Despite its narrow tailoring, the decision was notable as being first time a federal appeals court ruled against a voter ID law on its merits (rather than for procedural reasons) since the Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s voter ID law, as Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog noted. Since that 2008 decision, voter ID laws implemented by states have become stricter in both the types of IDs allowed and the remedial protocols when someone lacks the proper ID.

Paxton's week goes from bad to worse

As John has noted, he picked the wrong one to stop sniffing glue.

A federal judge on Wednesday ordered Texas state Attorney General Ken Paxton and another official to a contempt hearing over the state's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages following the June Supreme Court ruling, according to Dallas television station WFAA.

U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia issued the order in response to a legal action filed by Texas resident John Stone-Hoskins, who asked the court to hold Paxton in contempt after the state would not amend his spouse's death certificate to reflect that the two were married, according to the Houston Chronicle.

According to Cole, when he asked the state to amend his spouse's death certificate, the state cashed his check but refused to complete the paperwork. A Department of State Health Services official wrote, "Until the ruling is fully reviewed, we will not be able to know the impact, if any, on the process to file or amend death certificates. We will keep your documentation in a pending file and will advise you once a determination is made," according to the Chronicle.

Garcia also ordered Kirk Cole, the state's interim director at the Department of State Health Services, to issued an amended death certificate for Stone-Hoskin's spouse, James Stone-Hoskins, according to the Chronicle.

Paxton and Cole must appear in court next week so that Garcia can determine whether the two officials violated his July ruling prohibiting the the state from restricting same-sex marriage.

Don't forget to bring your toothbrush, fellas.