Scattershooting the unblogged after a very busy week

(More post-debate Trump developments below.)

-- Thanks to Kuff for plugging the petition to the NFL's powers that be to relocate the 2017 Super Bowl if HERO can't clear the bar in November.  World class cities aren't run by bigots and homophobes.  And when an offensive lineman clips a linebacker, or a defensive back commits pass interference, the whole team gets penalized, not just the infractor.  Sign it and share it.  It's already making waves.

The effort to recruit Beyonce' Knowles to the cause also continues to gain momentum.

-- The Green Party of the United States (GPUS) will hold its 2016 presidential nominating convention in Houston next August.  This is kind of a big deal.  Jill Stein, the most recent and also presumptive nominee (though she has competition) has visited Houston twice previously, in 2012 and earlier this year.  Both times she had a full itinerary and full houses at scheduled stops, and raised a lot of money (okay, a little money, but a lot by GP standards).  And both Stein and Bernie Sanders are clearly aware of the value of going into the lion's den of the South to break the stranglehold of the conservative populists.  And it also helps people lose their fear of the S-word.



-- Donald Trump spent most of yesterday feuding on Twitter and teevee with debate moderator Megyn Kelly, conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer, and RedState proprietor Erick Erickson, whose annual convention of the freakiest of the freak right wing is taking place this weekend.

GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump said Friday he can't recall using words such as "dog," ''fat" and "disgusting" to insult women he believes have slighted him, but such language litters his Twitter feed and other public comments he's made for years.

The issue took center stage at the first Republican debate of the 2016 campaign for president, when Fox News moderator Megyn Kelly asked Trump about his use of such language and whether it reflected the "temperament of a man we should elect as president."

Trump largely dismissed Kelly's question at the debate, but on Friday he went directly after her.

Before dawn, he had retweeted a post calling Kelly a "bimbo." The post was later deleted, but on Friday evening Trump called Kelly a "lightweight."

"She's not very tough and not very sharp," Trump said during a phone interview on CNN. "I don't respect her as a journalist."

Referring to Kelly's questions during the debate, Trump said, "There was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever."

Citing that remark, conservative commentator Erick Erickson said he was withdrawing his invitation for Trump to appear at his RedState Gathering in Atlanta on Saturday. "I just don't want someone on stage who gets a hostile question from a lady and his first inclination is to imply it was hormonal," Erickson wrote on the RedState website Friday night. "It just was wrong."

Erickson knows misogyny; he's the guy who coined the term "Abortion Barbie".  Update: Trump "clarifies" that he meant her nose, and calls everyone who thought he was referring to another part of her anatomy "deviants".

Trump's campaign responded: "This is just another example of weakness through being politically correct. For all of the people who were looking forward to Mr. Trump coming, we will miss you. Blame Erick Erickson, your weak and pathetic leader."

Besides what's obvious about these tirades of his, the fact remains that he can say them and Tweet them and pay no political price for doing so, unlike any other Republican running for president.  What Erickson is trying to do by shutting him out is to assert some control over Trump, a contest of wills that I wouldn't bet on just yet.  Reince Priebus is a eunuch at this point; the GOP establishment is Erickson now.  Even Rush Limbaugh is on Trump's side.  If the insiders don't do something now to slow his roll, the attacks just might make him stronger, and more difficult to defeat later.

This is what civil war looks like.

Make no mistake; The Donald is uniquely qualified to tear the Republican Party down to the bedrock under its foundation.  No matter whether he emerges as its nominee or runs as a third party independent, the GOP is already cooked for 2016 as it relates to the presidency.

And this may be the long-awaited earthquake fault line along which the Republicans crack in two.  It's the same fissure I'm trying to drive a wedge in with my HERO/Super Bowl petition.  Moderate, pro-business Republicans who are socially tolerant are continually being cleaved away from the radical Tea Party extremists.  Look at what's happening in the Texas Legislature for more clues to the future.

Except for Trump, there just wasn't all that much stupid and crazy going on last Thursday night.  Most of the ten-member varsity debaters looked weak, with Marco Rubio a notable exception (and the same for Carly Fiorina during the Happy Hour).  If the GOP nominated those two -- or to use another formidable example, John Kasich and Condoleeza Rice -- then Hillary Clinton and Julian Castro might be in real electoral trouble.

Don't worry; neither of those is happening.  And even if they did, Donald Trump as an indy would swamp their kayaks.

Update: More on the Trumpenstein Monster from No More Mister Nice and Oliver Willis.

KHOU on the HERO petition to relocate the Super Bowl

Some unnamed blogger started it, you know.

 

Boosters of big sporting events in Houston are nervous about the fight over the equal rights ordinance.

Opponents of the ordinance have succeeded in putting the issue on the November ballot. Now, some HERO supporters are calling upon the NFL to move the 2017 Super Bowl out of Houston if the ordinance is repealed. The online petition was launched by a blogger and it has dozens of signatures.

"Well, I think if Houston is ever perceived as an intolerant, bigoted place, it will greatly diminish our opportunities to bring sporting events to town," admitted Sports Authority Chairman J. Kent Friedman.

Houston's Super Bowl Committee had no comment.

Scared haters got something new to be scared of and hate.

The NFL reportedly considered moving a Super Bowl out of Arizona over legislation that would've offered legal protections to businesses that discriminated against gays. That never happened, because the governor vetoed the bill.

HERO opponents say it'll never happen here either.

"That's simply a red herring. That's simply what they tried to do in Indiana and Arkansas and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act," said ordinance opponent Jared Woodfill. "It basically shows that they are going to do anything and everything they can to skew the issue."

"I think it's a real threat," said KHOU 11 Political Analyst Bob Stein. "Now, how it plays with the voters is very interesting. It could conceivably become one in which voters have a backlash against it, see it as a -- how can I say this? -- a threat."

Houston voters will go to the polls in a little less than three months, but it's already game on for the equal rights ordinance.

Sign the petition, and if you already have, then share it.  Let's keep the momentum going.  Because when Houston's worst conservatives reveal they're worried, it means everybody else is winning.

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.

Sign the petition: The NFL should relocate the 2017 Super Bowl if Houston turns down HERO

Let's start separating the pro-business Republicans from the social conservatives extremists.

Sign the petition: The #NFL should move the 2017 Super Bowl if #Houston voters turn down #HERO: https://t.co/8DA8qfDV54 #HouNews #Houvote

— PDiddie (@PDiddie) August 5, 2015

Charles' good ideas, worth repeating:

The good news about that is that I don’t think a lot of people have yet given much thought to this issue. Oh, they’re vaguely aware of it, in the way that most people are vaguely aware of most local issues, but it’s not locked in their consciousness yet. For these folks, a different kind of outreach is needed. They will need to hear, from voices they like and trust, why voting the right way on the HERO referendum is something they should do. For that, HERO defenders – and here I’m looking at Mayor Parker, who needs to be the one to make most if not all of the requests I’m about to suggest – should reach out to high-profile Houstonians in sports, music, business, and religion to deliver a message about Houston being the kind of place where everyone is treated equally and respectfully. Given the support of the major sports leagues and the individual teams for equality and non-discrimination ordinances, I’d move heaven and earth to get JJ Watt, James Harden, Jose Altuve, and Carli Lloyd to do a PSA-style ad in which they say something like “My league supports equality. So does my team, and so do I. The Houston we love is open and accepting to all. That’s why I’m [voting the right way] on [whatever the ballot proposition is called], and I ask you to do so, too.” I can’t think of anything the haters could do to counter a message like that, coming from people like that.

There are plenty of other people that could be plugged in to a spot like that, with the script modified to fit them. Bill Lawson. George and Barbara Bush. Beyonce. The members of ZZ Top. Former newscasters Ron Stone (sic, RIP) and Dave Ward. UH President Renu Khator and Rice President David Leebron. You get the idea. Sure, some may say No for whatever the reason, but I bet many would say Yes, especially if Mayor Parker asked them personally. The key here is to get those spots out quickly, before the haters get their mail and whatever else going. You don’t have to spend much on TV for this – buy a few slots during the evening news and stuff like that, but the real value will be in having them on YouTube. This is about good will, coming from good people. It’s worth a lot, and we should take full advantage of it, because the other side can’t touch it.

Let's get all of this done.  Let's turn back this tide of fear and hate and show the world what kind of city Houston is.  World class.  Sign my petition, show up at City Hall, wear your red, do what you have to do.

We can't let the haters win this time.

Update:

Kent Friedman, board chair of the Harris County-Houston Sports Authority, warned that if HERO is scuttled, it could cost the city the 2016 NCCA Men's Final Four and 2017 Super Bowl. The NFL title game brings an economic impact "north of $800 million" to the city, he said.

"It would be pretty consistent for those institutions to react the same way if Houston were perceived" similarly to Arizona and Indiana during debates over anti-gay "religious freedom" legislation, Friedman said.

Ninety days from Election Day: assessing the Houston mayor's race

That poll from six weeks ago (there's more polling happening right now, though we may not see it before Labor Day), the negation of the city's equal rights ordinance by the Texas Supreme Court, and a dozen or so candidate fora now under our belts should give us a clearer picture of where the contest to be the next mayor of Houston stands today.

Except none of them really do.  So let's try to get a better handle on things, starting with a couple of Rebecca Elliott's recent articles from the Chron, the first one being the HGLBT Caucus' divided loyalties this time around.

As Houston's first openly gay mayor enters her sunset months in office, the city council campaign between two GLBT candidates is gearing up, and all of this year's progressive mayoral hopefuls are actively seeking the support of the gay community.

The once-marginalized group at the heart of the city's fight for gay rights, the GLBT Political Caucus, is now facing an unexpected test of its establishment appeal.

Last week, three months after the city began enforcing its equal rights ordinance, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that City Council must repeal the law or put it on the November ballot.

Should City Council place it before voters, the equal rights ordinance known as HERO widely is expected to boost turnout and draw in national money, setting the stage for a bitter campaign between the city's progressives and social conservatives.

Sylvester Turner and Chris Bell probably share the lead in terms of earning the Caucus' endorsement, to be voted on by members this Saturday, August 8.  Dr. Richard Murray's assessment -- I have questioned his premises before, and even bet against his prediction once and lost, it should be noted -- is unusually harsh with respect to the prospects for Bell's campaign should he not get it.

The issue is particularly acute for Bell, a longtime ally of the gay community -- one of the few that consistently votes in Houston's municipal races -- as he currently has less money in the bank than any of the top-tier candidates. 

"If he doesn't get the endorsement, that may cause a reassessment of his campaign," said Richard Murray, a political science professor at the University of Houston. 

I'm going to bet against Dr. Murray here again, and not just because he's evaluating candidate viability based on fundraising prowess.  I'm confident Bell will be in the race all the way to the end.  Without a Green or Socialist mayoral candidate filed in the race, he stands as the most progressive choice, and that's in spite of Ray Hill's vituperation.  Turner gets touted as such by his supporters, but those folks think the same thing about Hillary Clinton.  As mentioned before, Sylvester arrived a little late to the straight-but-not-narrow coming-out party.

But the gist of the story here is not so much about who wins the Caucus endorsement as it is whether or not they can mobilize the larger community of supporters of their cause to turn out and vote to uphold HERO.  And it's not just the electoral strength of the HGLBTC at stake; it's also Mayor Annise Parker's legacy.  To that end, she is going to pour all of her resources into saving the ordinance and forgo efforts to lift the revenue cap or change term limits.  Just three weeks ago, those were at the top of her last to-do list.  Not any more.

"It was my full expectation that I'd be spending my remaining campaign funds and my personal time advocating for these two good-government items, but because of the presence of HERO (the Houston equal rights ordinance) on the ballot, I'm going to be having to split my energy over there," she said. "There is no -- at this point -- group willing to step up and advocate for the other two. I'm not going to put some things out there just to fail. It may be more timely to bring the charter amendments to next November's electorate, and I can leave that decision to the next mayor."

So... who's going to be the conservative choice for the anti-HERO faction?  As Elliott suggests, Ben Hall is moving fast to capture that vote.

From Twitter to television, Hall is using his criticism of HERO to set himself apart from the largely progressive mayoral field.

"There's only one candidate in this race who has consistently for the last two years opposed HERO and supported the right of voters to vote," Hall said in a Fox 26 segment that aired Tuesday. "When the pastors wanted to fight in the court system, none of the other candidates was present. I was."

Most of Hall's competitors have remained out of the HERO limelight, issuing a single press release about the Supreme Court's decision or staying silent.

Five of them -- former Congressman Chris Bell, City Councilman Stephen Costello, former Harris County Sheriff Adrian Garcia, state Rep. Sylvester Turner and businessman Marty McVey -- have said they support the ordinance, while former Kemah mayor Bill King has tried to straddle the fence.

"I do not see the empirical need for a discrimination ordinance," King said last Saturday, after previously saying he would not have put the item on City Council's agenda.

Like Costello, King is seeking the support of Houston's conservative west side.

Through a spokesman, King declined to comment Thursday on whether he would vote to repeal HERO.

"He's between a rock and a hard place," said University of Houston political scientist Richard Murray. "The right conservative base doesn't like HERO, but the people who write big checks are more moderate on this issue."

Dr. Murray is correct here, and King has made a fairly strategic blunder, IMHO, by ceding the haters to Hall.  King and Costello -- still under fire for his 'rain tax', despite the fact that we're practically in a drought again -- are simply indistinguishable from one another as the least obnoxious conservative option.  Even Big Jolly agrees.  And despite his past shout-outs to Republicans to moderate their stances on tolerance for gays, Jolly seems to be going in the other direction now.  Perhaps he senses the same opportunity to capture the mayor's office that Hall does.

Is it possible that Hall -- still calling himself a Democrat despite all actions to the contrary -- and Turner split the vote between socially conservative black Democrats and socially liberal ones?

The only person who hasn't been mentioned yet is Adrian Garcia.  He seems to be ambling toward the runoff as the most likeable -- or least offensive -- dimwit in the race.  So far he is Teflon-coated.  Almost nobody has mentioned his lack of college degree, a la Scott Walker -- whose campaign manager is helping Costello -- nor Garcia's failing the HPD sergeant's exam more than once, never having been promoted in his 23 years in the city's police department.  I have called him out numerous times: on his ugly record on deportations, his no-bid consultant scandal, his lousy responses to the county jail disaster, and even his whining about the personnel changes his Republican successor at the Sheriff's Office made after Garcia quit that job.

But I would say that of all of Garcia's shortcomings, probably the most serious is the unflagging support, financial and otherwise, of Rick Perry's lawyer of record, Tony Buzbee (scroll all the way to the end of the article).  It's also come to my attention that former mayor Bill White -- a longtime ally of Garcia's, and an enemy to progressive Democrats himself -- and several Battleground Texas field activists are hard at work for the former sheriff.  (Frankly I thought BGTX was Steve Mostyn's turf.  Mostyn, as we have known for a long time now, is supporting Turner.)

Nobody seems to be noticing these things.  Maybe they don't care.  Garcia doesn't respond to my questions, so maybe someone of greater prominence in the media can get some straight answers.

I sure would hate to see Garcia and Hall in a runoff, that's for certain.  That just seems far too much like San Antonio's mayoral runoff earlier this year for my comfort level.  Hopefully there is something several of us can do -- beyond what Mayor Parker and the HGLBT Caucus will be doing, I'm saying -- to avoid that outcome.

Charles has some good ideas, and I have one I'm going to advance in a coming post.

Paxton updates

-- The Texas attorney general was arrested, booked, fingerprinted, and his mug shot taken this morning at the Collin County courthouse, after a grand jury unsealed indictments against him on three felony counts of securities laws violations.  He pleaded not guilty and asked for a jury trial.  He also posted personal-recognizance bonds totaling $35,000 and walked out of the courthouse twenty minutes after entering, through a side door to avoid press and protestors.

-- QR:

Attorney General Ken Paxton’s likely immediate successor if he were to resign, (First Assistant AG) Chip Roy, on Monday sent out a personal note to agency staff after Paxton was booked into the Collin County Jail on three securities-related charges.

“The Attorney General emphasized to me that he hoped this wouldn’t in any way harm any of the good people who work at the agency, whom, he has come to know and respect tremendously,” Roy wrote to agency staff. “But as you all know, life brings us lots of curve balls.”

-- Also from Harvey Kronberg: "Paxton jeopardy fundamentally different and has possibility of metastasizing":

Allegations not about political chicanery but instead swindling innocent civilians, the same kind of financial corruption that spawned the Tea Party after the Lehman Brothers collapse

Among the dozen or so statewide officeholders indicted over the last couple of decades, few have ever been convicted or served time. In many cases, the prosecution case was weak as when a state district judge directed the acquittal of Kay Bailey Hutchison because, as he told the jury, “the prosecution apparently has no theory of its case.”

With the exception of the Tom DeLay case, which was needlessly dragged out because an all-Republican appellate court ignored then-prosecutor Ronnie Earle’s request for an expedited review of the challenge to the finding of guilt, and let the case languish for four years.

In others, the high-priced defense lawyers simply out-lawyered the public sector prosecutor. Nevertheless, jurors have generally leaned sympathetically to political chicanery.

-- The eighteen other Texans (besides Ken Paxton) who have been indicted over the long history of the Lone Star State.

-- "Abbott and Patrick both issue terse statements on Paxton indictment":

Here’s Gov. Greg Abbott’s full statement:

"Everyone is entitled to due process under the law. As a former judge, I recognize this is the first step in a lengthy process and will respect that process as it moves forward."

The statement from Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick in full:

"It is important to recognize that an indictment is not a conviction. Under our Constitution, every person is innocent until proven guilty. I am confident our judicial system will weigh all the facts and applicable law with a blind eye for justice and Ken Paxton, like anyone else, will be afforded his day in court." 

Prior to these, Texas Republican leaders were deathly silent.

--  Here's more about the judge, the special prosecutors, and his defense attorney.  And here's more about those Republicans scrambling behind the scenes to replace him if/when he resigns.  They include two Texas Supreme Court justices.

Conspiracy theories have already emerged as to why “God’s Lawyer” is facing persecution – err, a prosecution that is partially based on Paxton's own admission to state regulators last year that he violated securities law.

Some might argue it is premature to speculate about how Abbott might handle the appointment of a successor to the Attorney General hand-picked by Ted Cruz and Tim Dunn. After all, the indictment is closer to the beginning of due process than the end and does not force his resignation.

But believe us at Buzz Central when we tell you that some of those who wish to step into the role have been working overtime behind the scenes to jockey for position. And unlike Paxton, none of the names we have heard so far would necessarily have the full-throated support of Sen. Cruz or midland oilman Dunn’s Empower Texans and allied organizations.

-- Yeah, about that Cruz connection.

For anyone asking the question: "How did a candidate like Paxton who already had a long record of unethical practices get elected?", the best answer is "Ted Cruz."

The race for the Republican nomination for Texas Attorney General was wide open in 2014. Paxton faced two other major candidates in the race, and none of the three were considered to be a favorite. The dead-heat nature of the race changed when Ted Cruz backed his close political ally, state Sen. Ken Paxton.

Cruz's support of Paxton was a signal to the extreme Tea Party activists who now control the Texas Republican Party. Paxton easily led the field in the first round primary and then stomped a more mainstream Republican candidate in the run-off.

Ted Cruz has called for the resignation of at least three Obama officials over policy disagreements and even said members of the U.S. Supreme Court who disagree with him should resign.

However, now that Ken Paxton has been indicted and is fighting to stay out of prison, Ted Cruz is laying low and refusing to make any public statements about the indictments. Clearly, Cruz’s support for Paxton has put him in a jam. If he speaks out in support of Paxton, he must explain how he can continue to back a politician facing evidence that he committed felony crimes. If he backs off of Paxton, he will anger Tea Party activists whose support he needs to compete in the Republican presidential primary.

More as it develops.

The Weekly Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance prefers attorneys general who aren't themselves lawbreakers as it brings you this week's roundup.

Off the Kuff is dismayed but not surprised by the business community's apathy about the coming effects of climate change in Texas.

Ken Paxton's indictments broke news on Saturday afternoon, about 24 hours later than PDiddie at Brains and Eggs predicted. The one remaining question is: how long does our lazy-eyed attorney general twist in the wind before Gov. Greg Abbott cuts down his stinking carcass?

Nonsequiteuse is concerned we may never get back through the looking glass. She realizes that facts are a quaint vestige of simpler times, but cannot resist offering not one but five of them, plus a conclusion, an opinion, and even a bonus prediction about Ken Paxton's pending felony indictment, words that give her great delight to type over and over and over again.

South Texas Chisme reports that the city of McAllen has embraced the humanitarian aspects of border immigration, and Dos Centavos makes the observation that Cesar Chavez ain't got nothin' on Bernie Sanders.

Texas Leftist follows the developing story of the Astrodome's latest funding-for-rehabilitation proposal.

Socratic Gadfly talks about the initial rollout of Congress' "new" energy plan and how so little of it is new.

John Coby at Bay Area Houston exposes the latest WART on the GOP: the Oklahoma Federation of Republican Women.

TXsharon at Bluedaze has a recent fracking news roundup.

McBlogger breaks down whatever dumbass thing was said by Michael Bloomberg about raising the minimum wage.

Neil at All People Have Value made note of former President Jimmy Carter referring to the U.S. as an oligarchy. APHV is part of NeilAquino.com.

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

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

Scott Braddock analyzes the Donald Trump-inspired proxy war between Rick Perry and Ted Cruz.

Somervell County Salon posts about not wanting to see certain content on one's Facebook timelines, Twitter feeds, and blog comments.

Grits for Breakfast recounts the coverage of the emotional and confrontational Texas House committee inquiry into the death of Sandra Bland.

State Impact Texas reports that as crude oil rides the rails to Houston, Texas firefighters are preparing for the worst-case scenarios.

Lone Star Ma prays for peace and justice.

David Ortez explains what the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance is and why it matters.

Street Smart shows how sacrificing the local street grid for highways can be devastating to the surrounding area.

The Texas Election Law Blog has some hope for restoring regulatory balance to the voting rights process.

Yellow Doggerel Democratic Views notes the passing of Firedoglake and the birth of Shadowproof.

And Fascist Dyke Motors uses a Buzzfeed-style click bait headline, which has nothing to do with Part One of her story, which unfortunately has no Part Two.

Sunday Funnies