"Just let the Republicans win: Maybe things need to get really bad before America wakes up"

Those of you who read all the way to the end of this post on the Texas Republican secessionist movement -- which failed to get on the state GOP primary ballot in a vote taken by the SREC -- will note that  a significant crossroads is coming up fast, and not just for the GOP and conservatives and TeaBaggers.

Liberals and progressives are right on the verge of separating themselves from the Democratic Party in the simmering feud between supporters of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.  Shane Ryan at Salon sets it up with an excerpt of Thomas Frank's decade-old warning about conservative, corporate, Republican Lite Democrats.

“The Democratic Leadership Council, the organization that produced such figures as Bill Clinton…has long been pushing the party to forget blue-collar voters and concentrate instead on recruiting affluent, white-collar professionals who are liberal on social issues. The larger interests that the DLC wants desperately to court are corporations, capable of generating campaign contributions far out-weighing anything raised by organized labor. The way to collect the votes and—more important—the money of these coveted constituencies, “New Democrats” think, is to stand rock-sold on, say, the pro-choice position while making endless concessions on economic issues, on welfare, NAFTA, Social Security, labor law, privatization, deregulation, and the rest of it…. Democrats no longer speak to the people on the losing end of a free-market system that is becoming more brutal and more arrogant by the day.”

-- Thomas Frank, What’s the Matter with Kansas, 2004

Can you believe that it's been over ten years since those words were written?  The year the ultimate elitist, Boston Brahmin John Kerry, failed to fight back against the Swift Boat smears and was defeated by George W. Bush, Ohio voting irregularities not withstanding?

As in 1980, when Ted Kennedy battled with Jimmy Carter all the way to the end, and to paraphrase the extreme conservative Republican who won the presidency that year... here we go again.

Lately, we’ve witnessed a rash of Bernie Sanders supporters declaring that they refuse to vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election. Some are defiant, and some are surprised at themselves — they never expected to be so turned off by a Democratic candidate. This has, in turn, produced a backlash from Democrats of all stripes who are terrified of a progressive revolt that divides the left in 2016 and leads to a Republican presidency. They paint the Sanders heretics as selfish and petulant — a bunch of sore losers who are prepared to destroy the country by omission. What they don’t consider, and what I hope to argue, is that there may be a rational, tactical justification for abandoning Hillary in the general election.

That bold emphasis is mine, since it underscores what I have been saying for six months.

Like most political arguments in America, the debate has become instantly polarized, and has planted the seeds of bitterness that may well bear fruit if Clinton wins the nomination and the intra-left schism comes to pass.

As a Sanders supporter and a political progressive, I haven’t yet decided whether I’ll vote for Clinton if she holds her lead and wins the nomination. 

As you should already know, I have decided, and will not under any circumstance vote for her.  I also won't be sitting out the 2016 election, and I certainly won't be writing in Bernie Sanders' name.

When I convey this uncertainty to fellow Democrats, I get one of two reactions. From progressives, mild to moderate agreement — it will be agonizing to abstain, and equally agonizing to vote for Hillary. Centrist Clinton supporters have a very different reaction, which I can only describe as form of exasperation that puts them at serious risk for tearing their hair out with both hands. They make a few emphatic points, and we may as well rehash them here:

1. By not voting for Hillary in a general election, you’re contributing to the potential reign of a Republican president, and everything that entails, for at least four years. Is your memory so short that you’ve forgotten the awful consequences of George Bush beating Al Gore because of a few thousand Nader supporters in Florida?

2. The next president may well appoint multiple Supreme Court justices, which would influence our national politics well beyond one or two terms.

3. Hey, idiot: No matter how much you dislike Hillary, she’s going to be miles better than some Republican! Even your own candidate says this!

4. We would vote for Bernie if he won.

And these are all good points. More importantly, I understand these points. I understood them from the start, in fact — they’re intuitive — and I’ve factored them in to the calculus.

Nevertheless, I still see it as a difficult choice. You might call this essay an exercise in confession — I know the potential disasters an anti-Clinton revolt entails, but I have to insist that for progressives like me, choosing whether to support her is not as simple as “fall in line or open the castle gates to the Republican hordes.” There’s strategic nuance hiding behind the façade of this binary thinking, and the consequences of throwing Hillary to the wolves are not as straightforward as many would like to believe.

These are divisive times on the left, and though the anti-Hillary movement is still marginal among progressives, it’s growing, and it needs to be understood on its own terms to prevent a party-wide schism.

Candidly I don't believe the schism can or even should be avoided, for the ultimate betterment of progressive populist voters, be they Democrats, Greens, Socialist Workers party, Working Families Party, Justice Party, or wherever they choose to place themselves.

Others have already written extensively on the issues that make her a deeply unattractive candidate to progressives; on how she’s not just dishonest — a description that applies to even the best politicians — but strikingly dishonest … as in, so comprehensively dishonest that dishonesty has become her unofficial modus operandi, to the point that when she defended her career-long support for Wall Street by invoking 9/11 and gender in the last debate. It seemed so perfectly Hillary-esque that most Sanders supporters didn’t blink; on how she and her husband used coded race-baiting in an attempt to destabilize the Obama campaign, and is employing a watered-down version of the same dirty game to imply that Sanders is sexist; on how her campaign has colluded with the DNC to reduce the number of debates — and to stage those few on awkward Saturdays — in order to limit Sanders’ exposure and prevent a repeat of Obama’s comeback; on how she has tacked leftward merely to combat Sanders’ progressive momentum — going against a lifetime of pro-Wall Street, pro-business action — and not because she actually espouses any of her shiny new positions; on how she will abandon even the rhetoric of reform the minute she wins the primary, as she and the rest of the New Democrats abandoned workers and the middle class long ago.

Yes, all of that is enough for me to reject Clinton.  I've got plenty of other reasons, though, most of which include wars and drones and bombings and assassinations under the pretense of "keeping Americans safe".  We're seeing how well this action is working lately, don't we?

But here's the real question, giving proper deference to the 'lesser of two evils' argument.

And with that unpleasant business out of the way, we arrive at the second assumption of this “cutting off the nose to spite the face” charge — that a Republican victory would be far worse, to the point of disaster, than a Clinton presidency. Bernie Sanders agrees with this, and in the short term, any left-leaning person with a brain would be a fool to disagree.

So: Do we choke back our principles, hold our noses and cast a vote for Hillary in the general? Or is there a long-term argument to be made for withholding our votes and letting the Democrat lose?

Here we go, Hillarians.  Hold on to your seats.

(T)here is a good strategic reason not to vote for Hillary, and it boils down to this: If progressives fall in line, it shows the DNC and the party’s structural elite that they can have our loyalty for nothing. It sets a terrible precedent for the future. To steal a crass expression, why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?

Rowing in behind Clinton only justifies the establishment logic — “just feed the lefties a few scraps in the primary, wax poetic about the Republican bogeyman in the general, and they’ll shut up.” Progressives would be giving something quite important — their votes — for a party that hides behind fear-based arguments to maintain intimate ties with Wall Street while ignoring its supposed base.

But consider this: What if we didn’t vote, and Hillary lost as a result? Like it or not, that makes a profound statement. It would likely force the Democratic party to move left on economic issues and, fearing another schism, throw its weight behind a far more progressive candidate in 2020. Bernie Sanders himself says that we need a political revolution to enact real change, and if progressives plan to build a lasting movement in America, it has to start with making our voices heard on a national scale. Sending a message to the party that we won’t be placated by politicians who stand in the regressive center is one hell of an opening salvo.

This is every single reason I have suggested for voting for the Green Party's candidates.  It is in fact the most important thing Sanders supporters, disaffected liberals, and some unquantifiable number of true independents, non- and infrequent voters, and even a few Republicans -- Gobsmack bless their hearts -- can do at the ballot box.  Not voting or writing in Sanders' name is foolish.

Pick up those scattered pieces of your brain matter, Blue Dogs, and finish reading.

... If Hillary lost because progressives abstained from voting, it’s possible that Republican incompetence would be laid bare, and that they’d run the country into the ground over the next four years. If that’s what it takes to show the people that a leftist political revolution is the only viable way forward, it will have been worth watching Hillary bite the political dust. Come 2020, we could be looking at a landscape where progressive politics can finally gather enough momentum to sweep the country, and usher in a new era of FDR-esque reforms.

The dark side of withholding votes from Hillary is obvious, and it has to be measured, but the longer you analyze the situation, the more compelling the bright side becomes. No outcome is written in stone, but I would argue that the mere presence of reasonable doubt may be the best argument of all — if there’s a possibility of reframing national politics, why push ahead on the rotten middle path? Why not be guided by reasonable doubt, and let it open our minds to the possibility of positive political action?

[...]

Those are the terms. Will 2016 be the year when a revolt is justified? For now, I remain undecided. But the doubt is growing, and centrists should understand that when they accuse progressives of turning their backs on the party, it’s hard not to laugh — we’re simply fighting for traction against an erstwhile ally that turned its back on us.

That's a little nicer than I would put it, but the point is still made.  Will the "New Democrats" pay heed?  About all they have to do to con liberal Democrats -- sheepdogging them onto their bandwagon -- is give Bernie a night at the convention, make promises they might keep about a President Hillary adopting some of his progressive policy plans, and stop being sore winners.  Or would they rather have their scapegoats for future failure identified?

If the revolution gets postponed until 2020, I'll hunker down and ride out four years of Trump/Cruz/Rubio and American fascism.  What I don't think I can stand is fifteen more years of whining from the Blues about those who didn't vote for their shitty conservative candidate, or who voted for someone else.  Winter is coming, and it just may last all the way through the summer and into next fall.  I'm of the opinion that nothing could be better for the Democratic Party than to cleave itself in two and see which half survives after losing next November.

Progress or regress.  Forward or backward.  That's as clear a choice as it gets, one conservaDems will try to make work for Hillary against Trump (or whomever).  That, however, is nothing but a Hobbesian choice.

If you're still reading this, you and I both know that you're too smart to do that.

Update: This guy is waaaay angrier than me about the whole history of progressives in the Democratic Party, and recounts a bunch of it, from Jesse Jackson sheepdogging his Rainbow Coalition in behind Mike Dukakis in 1988, to Dennis Kucinich doing the same for Kerry in 2004, right up to Bernie and now.  He's written nearly 70 books and holds a Ph.D., so he might know what he's talking about.  Last three grafs:

Other pundits claim (Sanders) is ‘challenging’ the Democratic Party ‘from the left’ when in fact he is doing everything possible to prevent millions of disaffected ex-Democratic voters, mostly workers and minorities, from rejecting the Democrats and joining or forming alternative political movements.

The key to understanding why millions of Americans, fed up with 30 years of declining living and health standards, deepening inequalities and perpetual wars, do not form an ‘alternative party’ is that they have been repeatedly conned and corralled in the Democratic Party by the “house radicals”.

Jackson, Kucinich, Obama and Sanders promised radical changes in the primaries and then have gone on to hand their supporters, mostly disaffected workers, over to the Party oligarchs, abandoning them without their past social movements or future hope: like cast-off condoms. Is there any wonder why so many abstain!

Update II: Why Hillary would be a worse president than a Republican

The Weekly Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance thinks we need fewer thoughts and prayers and more action to curb gun violence as it brings you this week's roundup.

 Off the Kuff has been following the legal standoff between Greg Abbott and refugee relief organizations with increasing disbelief.

Libby Shaw, contributing to Daily Kos, is not the least bit surprised to learn that the Texas Republican Party dances with the absurdity of secession again. We’re back in the silly season of elections. TX GOP: So it now it wants to secede?

Socratic Gadfly heard about Mark Zuckerberg's alleged shiny new charity, looked at it, and saw it was full of problems. Then, when some "pseudoskeptics" either claimed he was wrong, or else did special pleading for Zuckerberg, he took a closer look and found it was even worse.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme thinks Ted Cruz is a mansplaining *&% for saying condoms are all a woman needs in the way of reproductive health care.

 "Thoughts and prayers" as gun safety policy from too many Republicans who are responsible for crafting laws which protect Americans.... isn't. PDiddie at Brains and Eggs would like to see something more effective to stop the carnage in this country.

Texas Leftist took note of the threats by Lone Star Republicans to state relief agencies and Christian charities choosing to assist and relocate Syrian refugees here, a threat which turned out to be a bluff.

John Coby at Bay Area Houston wants to make sure you know who NOT to vote for in the H-Town municipal runoff election.

Earthquakes in Irving have spawned a new community impact activist group in that city, writes TXsharon at Bluedaze.

The Lewisville Texan Journal has a charming story about the new Cat Corner in a local mall, where shoppers can lounge a bit with a feline friend.

Stace at Dos Centavos has a holiday opportunity for those who want to give something really big back: sponsoring a student of the Las Americas Newcomer School during their first holiday in the United States.

Neil at All People Have Value took a good picture of downtown Houston at night. Our everyday lives have a lot of value. We should assert this value each day. APHV is part of NeilAquino.com.

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

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

David Ortez gives three reasons why decriminalizing first-time marijuana possession cases will be good for Harris County.

Lone Star Ma highlights the Sustainable Development Goal of ending hunger.

Robert Rivard examines the science and denial of climate change.

TFN Insider asks why Greg Abbott is bullying faith-based organizations when he claims to support religious freedom.

Lize Burr delves into the Great Disappearing Condom Machine Mystery.

Grits for Breakfast discusses the role of plea bargains in unjust convictions.

The Politics of Courage lists all of the Green, Socialist Workers Party, and Working Families Party candidates who won, or did well in, their elections last week.  Yes, in America.  The list doesn't include Harris County Green Joseph McElligott, who took over 11,000 votes and 6.31% in his Houston AL 5 bid.

Dallas Morning Views opined about Lite Guvnah Dan Patrick's pushback on "thoughts and prayers".

The Texas Observer pointed out another court defeat to Ken Paxton: more than $600,000 in legal fees to the attorneys of plaintiffs in the recent challenge to same sex marriage, which is now the law of the land.

Offcite's Houston mayoral questionnaire was posted, with the candidates responding to issues like parking, parks, pollution, preservation, and more.

In light of the contract overruns associated with the tech overhaul of the state's child support network, Somervell County Salon wants to know why Texas is paying Accenture (aka Arthur Anderson before the Enron debacle) for anything.

Houston Matters emphasizes that for fans of the abstract-expressionist Mark Rothko, there are currently three locations in Houston featuring his work.

Meanwhile back at the state capital, Better Texas Blog details some of the interim charges for the 2017 legislative session.

TXGOP flunks secession gut-check

How many delegates do you think pronounced it suck-cession?  Astoundingly, as Bud Kennedy recounts, they applied some forethought and decided it wasn't a good idea.

With the spirit of Texas President Sam Houston over the room, state party executives voted Saturday in Austin not to poll March primary voters on declaring Texas independence.

Austin Republican Mike Goldman’s voice rose as he quoted Houston’s opposition to Confederate secession and implored the party’s state committee to avert “brother fighting brother on whether they are a Texan first or an American first.”

More immediately, the vote averted a national embarrassment with implications both in March and November.

If the party had a poll on secession, that would have drawn more disenchanted independents who also support Donald Trump. (Even the Houston-area Tea Party activists behind the idea said it’d draw new voters.) That would have hindered U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz’s shot at claiming more Texas delegates.

So this essentially came down to a resolution failing to get on the ballot -- which supporters believed would attract new voters to their primary -- because it might hurt the prospects of their favorite son, and make the party look like a sea-to-shining sea joke.  (Clue to Texas Republicans: that ship sailed years ago.)

Then, if the referendum passed and Cruz were on the ticket, can you imagine the campaign? “Why vote for a Texas Republican? They don’t even want to stay in the Union.”

Since 1861, Texas secession has always been a farcical idea promoted by liars, self-important patriots and greedy merchandise peddlers. This year, it just happens to be a particularly self-destructive idea for Republicans, which must be why the Tea Party party-wreckers brought it up.

There was an interesting article recently that suggested the Tea Bags, while losing favor overall, still have cracking up the GOP in mind.  Psychologically, they've already quit on the party, they just haven't filed the divorce paperwork.  While I found that premise somewhat intriguing, it seems more likely to me that they -- with Trump as their tool -- will actually take over the GOP and push out the moderates, who are hesitant emotionally or physically to disconnect.  Is Lindsey Graham correct in saying that nominating Donald Trump means the end of the GOP as we know it?

Are they at risk of becoming 21st century American fascists?

Honestly I'm more focused on seeing if Hillarians are going to be successful in driving out the Sandernistas.  Democrats, after all, have repeatedly demonstrated a propensity not to vote if the candidate nominated does not enthuse them enough to do so.  This is so obviously the difference between Hillary and Bernie that I am almost surprised that so many Democrats do not get it.

If I'm right about this trend, Trump could get elected president.

Mark this post as the first time I have publicly entertained the possibility that Clinton loses in 2016.

Sunday Thoughts and Prayers Funnies

A letter to Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan from their baby, Max (Warning: language)

Cheney, busted

In keeping with the Star Wars references, this isn't the frogmarch we've been looking for.

One of the most controversial vice presidents in U.S. history will have a permanent presence in the halls of power in Washington after a marble bust of Dick Cheney was unveiled Thursday at the U.S. Capitol. (Former president George W.) Bush, Vice President Biden and other dignitaries offered effusive praise — and polite jokes as the sculpture was unveiled.

I think the Darth Vader comparisons are unfair.  The former Anakin Skywalker fought in every war that occurred during his lifetime; Cheney was more than happy to let others fight and die in his place, many times.

The real sculpture also has a difficult time convincing me it's an accurate representation.

So do the plaudits and jokes, especially Joe Biden's.

"The way you have conducted yourself is a model for anyone in high public office," Biden said. "I'm afraid I've blown his cover. I actually like Dick Cheney."

I call bullshit, Joe.

Update: More cringeworthy satire from Slate.  "Honored for ending terrorism"...

However, in retrospect it is hard to say that Cheney's decisions were anything but deeply prescient, and one thing is certain: The invasion ended Islamic terrorism and did not create a civil war that ironically allowed al-Qaida to flourish in an area where it had no prior presence, ultimately begetting an even more dangerous and inhumane splinter group called ISIS that continues to threaten American lives to this day.

[...]

Cheney was also praised for his ethical decision not to arrange for a company which had very recently paid him tens of millions of dollars and in which he had "a continuing financial interest" to become one of the largest beneficiaries of United States federal spending in Iraq. One can only imagine the repercussions if he had actually done something like that.

Competing polls show Turner, King with small leads over each other

Both are, shall we say, non-independent.

The Houston Realty Business Coalition (HRBC) released a poll of 300 active voters today measuring support of Mayoral candidates in the December runoff election.  

Blahblahblah.

In the upcoming runoff election for Mayor, if you had to choose, would you be voting for Bill King or Sylvester Turner?

 

Bill King                      48%

Sylvester Turner          43%

Undecided                     9% 

More at the link if you want it.  Conversely, Sylvester Turner's polling outfit shows him at 47-40, with 13% undecided.

The war of the polls: King touts survey showing he's ahead, Turner's camp rushes to counter #houvote pic.twitter.com/YWenctrSm8

— Rebecca Elliott (@rfelliott) December 3, 2015

Right down to the wire, folks.  Vote early until Tuesday, vote a week from Saturday if you don't.

Update: Sue Davis with the Turner campaign adds this (via email):

The King campaign is pushing a poll today with numbers that are drastically different than ours. But check the methodology before you take what King says at face value. His poll is a 300-sample, notoriously unreliable robo-call poll. It claims a 4% margin of error. However, in a sample size that small, according to our pollsters FM3, the margin of error should be 5.7%.

Additionally, 16% of people only use cell phones (like me). Robo-call polls are not allowed to call cell phones, so King’s poll missed out on a whole segment of voters.

"Thoughts and prayers" as gun safety policy

Working about as well as you would expect.

(Yesterday) saw not one but two mass shootings, on opposite sides of the country. In San Bernardino, California, three gunmen entered a center for persons with disabilities and killed at least fourteen people. In Savannah, Georgia, a single gunman killed a woman and injured three more people in the early hours of this morning.

There was also a shooting death in front of a Houston women's clinic yesterday.

All three Democratic presidential candidates responded to the shooting by calling for something — ANYTHING — by way of action to prevent the next mass shooting. All of the Republican presidential candidates called for prayers, and perhaps some thoughts, for the victims, their families and first responders on the scene.

It didn’t stop there, though. (Think Progress contributing editor) Igor Volsky has found 38 -- and counting -- Republican members of Congress, not counting the ones who are running for president, who tweeted out some version of “thoughts and prayers” immediately following the San Bernardino shooting. He also made a second pass through with said members’ contributions from the NRA.

Go check it out.  As the linked piece's headline so bluntly reveals, the sum of gun safety policy for the Republican Party begins and ends with "thoughts and prayers".  The New York Post also pointed out the hypocrisy of asking and then waiting for the Supreme Being to take action.

New York Daily News cover on #SanBernadino NAILS it. pic.twitter.com/weyLaQH4od

— Tom McKay (@thetomzone) December 3, 2015

As was the case with October’s mass shooting in Oregon, the Republican party line hasn’t even included the traditional hand-waving at the need for improved mental health services — even as there are bills currently stalled in Congress that would improve our country’s mental health services! Instead, the unified message has been that thoughts and prayers are the necessary and sufficient reaction to this shooting tragedy.

You don't have to be a non-believer to understand how powerfully ignorant this is. But as expected, Christians pushed back against being shamed for doing nothing but close their eyes and meditate.

In isolation, nothing. ... (I)f you, personally, want to send good thoughts in the direction of someone who has just experienced a loss, go ahead. It doesn’t hurt anyone, although God’s continued agnosticism on American gun violence has made it pretty clear that it isn’t helping, either. What absolutely is hurting people, however, is the continued implicit insistence of the Thoughts and Prayers Caucus that there simply isn’t anything else we can do about America’s off-the-charts homicide rate.

Because when politicians offer their thoughts and prayers, they don’t do it in a vacuum. These are people charged with making sure that tragedies like these don’t happen again, and ... the same representatives who are driven to prayer by the sheer horror of this tragedy have stopped even pretending to put any effort into curbing gun violence. Hell, they’ve blocked efforts to research the issue.

This being the case, the regular call to prayer we see every time someone takes legally-purchased guns and kills a whole bunch of people with them comes off as nothing more than a dodge. Prayer is being passed off as what we’re supposed to do instead of coming up with any ideas for how to make mass shootings happen less than once per day. Given that the number of prayers being offered by various politicians seems to be directly proportional to the size of the investment the NRA has made in their campaigns, you don’t have to be all that creative to imagine why.

If you're one of those people who votes straight ticket GOP, is afraid that Bill Clinton Barack Obama Hillary Clinton is coming to take away all your guns, you might be part of the problem.  Whether you're sending thoughts and prayers to the latest victims of the most recent mass shooting, or not.

If Republican thoughts and prayers were followed up with anything by way of an actionable solution to this epidemic-level problem, it’d be one thing. But when their conversation starts and ends with an earnest, prayerful tweet, it feels like they’re sticking their fingers in their ears until the news cycle moves on. They bring no actual ideas to the table, just well-wishes. Doing nothing appears to be the line item on the party platform, but “thoughts and prayers” are scribbled into the margins in order to give candidates something to tweet out.

The Atlantic’s Emma Green is dismayed that prayer isn’t being welcomed in the political debate today, writing that “At one time in American history, liberals and conservatives shared a language of God, but that’s clearly no longer the case; any invocation of faith is taken as implicit advocacy of right-wing political beliefs.” But today, prayer really is being used to defend a particular right-wing political belief: that the only feasible solution to mass shootings is to get on your knees and ask God to let more than a week pass before the next one. One political party’s pseudo-religious commitment to that belief is indirectly contributing to the deaths of thousands of Americans every year.

If that’s what prayer is being used for, it deserves to be shamed.

Daily mass murders from high-powered weapons are officially this nation's most pressing concern, whether the shooters be Muslim or whether they are not.

I'll ask again: what do we expect our elected leaders to do about this?  I'm asking more specifically beyond thoughts and prayers.

Houston mayoral debate tonight

There was also one last night, which I skipped, and two more after tonight, one of which has been previously advanced.

Univision 45/KXLN-TV and ABC-13/KTRK-TV have joined to co-host the Houston Mayoral Debate, streaming it live from the University of Houston-Downtown at One Main Street, Houston, Texas at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, December 2nd. The Houston Mayoral Debate will feature runoff candidates Bill King and Sylvester Turner and will be accessible live on-air on KTRK-TV abc13 and online at www.abc13.com and www.univision45.com. Simultaneous Spanish-language translation will be available on Univision 45's website and will air the same day at 10 p.m. The debate will be presented in partnership with the University of Houston-Downtown and Mi Familia Vota.

Univision is the most-watched television network in Houston. How's the ad rotation between King and Turner over there?  Anybody who knows want to say?

ABC-13's Erik Barajas and Univision 45's Rebecca Suarez will moderate the debate. The audience will be by invitation only; however, Houston voters are encouraged to submit their questions in English or Spanish by posting them to twitter using #ABC13VOTE.

In other election news...

That's my state representative, Borris Miles, in the top left corner.  Next to him is Dr. Alma Allen and former council contender Laurie Robinson, and the bottom row, left to right, is Harold Dutton, Willie Alexander, and Garnet Coleman.  Former Texpatriate blogger Noah Horwitz, whose father challenged Christie in 2013, also declared on his FB page that he was voting for Christie.

NO.  Just no.

These are Democrats -- some of whom allege themselves to be 'progressive' -- recommending a vote for a conservative Republican who stands firm against influenza vaccines, saying "you don't die from the flu".  (In the United States of America, the number of deaths from the flu -- not complications from it but the illness itself -- is a number estimated to be between a few hundred to a few thousand annually.  Most are children or elderly who don't receive the vaccine.  Christie was the only 'no' on city council two years ago to accept federal dollars for flu shots for Houstonians.)

Yes, it is accurate to say that Sharon Moses, the so-called Democrat in the runoff against Christie, sucks.  But she doesn't suck so hard that you should be voting for this. fucking. guy.  That makes you a moron, not a lofty non-partisan.

Your best vote other than nobody in this race is to write in Cthulhu, the least worst of three evils.

This is the dumbest thing I have seen a bunch of local Democrats do yet.

The faces of American domestic terrorism

Some might be inclined to call them Christian terrorists (in the same vein as "Islamic terrorists") but I'm not certain without Googling -- which I'm disinclined to do -- whether that is the case for all of those pictured.  It certainly is for Robert Dear, despite what Ted Cruz demagogues says.

Let's stick with 'American terrorists' for the moment, without referring to their religious affiliation, or their race, their political ideology, or even their psychological state.  They and their peers have many of those things in common, but for the purpose of this exercise let's not make the same mistakes conservatives make in generalization.  Kindly take note -- presuming you're familiar with their faces and backstories, of course -- of their different motivations for carrying out their terrorist acts.

Paraphrasing the words attributed to PA state representative Brian Sims, quoted in this Facebook meme (scroll down):

"These are the very familiar faces of terrorism in America. They are not members of ISIS, or Hamas, or the Crips. They are neither Muslim nor atheist. They don't have brown skin, they don't wear a keffiyah or a hoodie. They didn't come to the United States from across the southern border, or on a boat or a raft. They weren't escaping genocide or fleeing a ruthless dictator. They aren't refugees, or 'Ill Eagles', or 'thugs', or foreigners.

"They're all ours, America. What are we going to do about them?"

I'm taking ownership of this very serious problem by using "our" and not "their" in the next-to-last sentence.  Because we're all in this together.

The suggestion box is open.  Who'd like to go first?

Ted Cruz is a transgendered leftist activist

Just like Donald Trump, out to destroy the Republican Party from within.

Speaking with reporters following the (shootings at a Colorado Planned Parenthood), Cruz rejected suggestions that the shooter was part of the anti-abortion movement, taking issue with the “vicious rhetoric on the left blaming those who are pro-life.”

Robert Lewis Dear, 57, was taken into custody Friday night after allegedly opening fire inside a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, killing three and injuring nine others.

When a reporter reminded the Texas senator that the suspect allegedly made a comment about “baby parts” while being arrested, Cruz countered, “It’s also been reported that he was registered as an independent and a woman and transgendered leftist activist, if that’s what he is.”

Dear’s voter registration, where he is listed as a woman, was uncovered by the Gateway Pundit, a self-described "right-of-center news website."

“We know that he was a man who was registered to vote as a woman,” Cruz said. “The media promptly wants to blame him on the pro-life moment when at this point there is very little evidence to suggest that.”

The appropriate response, from Jon Green at AMERICAblog.

Cruz is referring to right wing bloggers, who reported on Saturday that Dear is listed as female on his voter registration. It appears that, like Bill O’Reilly, he checked the wrong box on his form.

Cruz’s campaign later clarified that Cruz didn’t mean to imply that Dear was actually a “transgendered leftist activist,” but rather that “there isn’t enough information.” In other words, it’s just as likely that Dear is exactly who he says he is as compared to a ridiculous caricature of what the right wing imagines white criminals to be. You see a radical conservative Christian, Gateway Pundit sees the opposite. HOW CAN WE TELL THE DIFFERENCE???

Aside from Dear’s penchant for handing anti-Obama literature to complete strangers.

Cruz’s is a particularly lazy form of misdirection, to say nothing of a drastic deviation from the conclusions he was more than willing to jump to following the Paris attacks. He might as well have said that some people think cucumbers taste better pickled. While no less ridiculous, at least that bit of misdirection would have been true.

The somewhat less than appropriate response, from me:

Ted Cruz likes his pickled cucumbers deep up his ass, with a side order of tossed salad.  As far as we know.  That has been reported in the media (this blog).

So if this is how the next twelve months is going to go, we might as well be prepared to counter their facts with some facts of our own.  Right?

Update: "Ted Cruz says there is no ‘war on women’ because we don’t have a condom shortage"

Republicans are not against contraceptives. I've used many different kinds of birth control because it's hard to find extra small condoms.

— Speaker Cruz (@HavanaTed) December 1, 2015

December 14 is the deadline to file as a candidate for office

Kuff has already endorsed Steve Brown's candidacy -- announced via Tweet -- for HD 27, the incumbent having possibly spent Thanksgiving in the Harris County jail.  Former appeals court justice Morris Overstreet has declared his intention to challenge Kim Ogg and the oafish Lloyd Oliver for Harris County District Attorney in the Democratic primary (don't miss the hilarious comments on Overstreet's bid at Murray Newman's blog).  And municipal court judge Ursula Hall has, via email, recently announced her pursuit of the 165th Civil District Court, held by Republican and Greg Abbott appointee Debra Mayfield.  A website linked to her name advertises "cash advance, debt consolidation and more" at the Google, and Lisa Falkenberg of the Chron had this entertaining report about Hall's last bid for state district court in 2010.  And Stace has even more, including the two Democrats off to a fast start to fill Sylvester Turner's vacated HD 139 chair.

But as far as my desired candidates go... I'm looking at you.

I'd run for something myself if I wasn't half-deaf and concerned that a Christian terrorist might shoot me for being an atheist.  Really (scroll down just a bit from the top).  Even with my history of offensive blog postings that would serve as ready-made oppo research, I'd run for office... if I could only hear the questions posed to me at a candidate forum.

Hearing-impaired atheists need representation too, you know.  But since I can't run, why don't you.  Yes, you.

Run as a Democrat or run as a Green.  The Texas Green Party especially would welcome your candidacy.  (Just don't be a flake or disingenuous about it.)  The fact is that sensible, sane liberals and progressives need to run for office in order to show the multitudes of non-voters that common men and women both lack and deserve a voice in the halls of political authority.  It would be great if you actually won, of course, and 2016 is a Texas Democrat's best quadrennial chance, but running as a Green sends the proper signals to an otherwise inept state party apparatus that working-class folks need a better partner than Texas Democrats have demonstrated for the past twenty years.  If you're going to lose anyway, you might as well lose with your progressive principles intact, and not sold out to a duopolist, center-left, corporate/militarist money-grubbing establishment party.

Hell, if two-time loser James Cargas wants to get his ass whipped by John Culberson a third time, why can't someone with honor, distinction, and integrity do so?  Like you, for example.

We have enough wealthy attorneys, business owners, and professionals holding political office and seeking it.  The One Percent is already well-represented.  We need more women, more people of color, more LGBT and especially more non-rich people in Austin and Washington.

Sort of like climate change, if we don't take action fast about fixing things, we might just be too late.  So it's on us -- err, you -- to make the change we all want to see and need to have happen.

Don't just vote this year; make a bid.  Stand for election somewhere, anywhere.  You literally have nothing to lose and potentially everything for all of us to gain.  The floor is fairly high, and the ceiling is... well, let's say, the roof is open to the sky.  Why don't you go for it?

Take a couple of weeks and decide.  The world is your oyster -- a somewhat bacteria-endangered oyster to be sure, but still yours for the taking.

The Weekly Runoff Wrangle

In bringing you this week's blog post roundup, the Texas Progressive Alliance is dismayed that we must once again stand with Planned Parenthood as they come under fire, literally and figuratively.

Off the Kuff gave three more looks at the Houston electorate in 2015.

Socratic Gadfly is willing to go beyond Bernie Sanders and supports a selective use of corporate socialism.

The last Houston mayoral debate is scheduled for Saturday, December 5, and as early voting begins Wednesday, December 2nd, PDiddie at Brains an Eggs offered his P-Slate for the runoff.

Neil at All People Have Value took more pictures of Houston as part of making plain the value of everyday life. APHV is part of NeilAquino.com.

Dos Centavos praised the opening of Cafécollege Houston (which isn't a new cafe').

BlueDaze guest blogger Chuck “Gas Plant” Dickens, great-great-grand-nephew of the original author of A Tale of Two Cities, posts a 21st century version of the story... one which will give us gas.

jobsanger takes notice of the word politicians and the media won't use to describe the Robert Dears of America: Christian.

John Coby at Bay Area Houston checks his watch and reminds us that it's time for the GOP to scare the crap out of everyone again.

And CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme is irritated by the fact that Texas is still denying birth certificates to children of 'certain' US mothers.

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

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

The TSTA Blog thinks school funding trumps test score concerns.

The Makeshift Academic considers the state of Medicaid expansion in the wake of the Louisiana election, and The Quintessential Curmudgeon has more from across the Sabine, from the election of a Democratic governor to the mystery swirling around the fate of the head football coach at LSU.

Lize Burr interprets Greg Abbott's most recent bout of shameless base-pandering.

Texas Watch invites you to donate to important causes for #GivingTuesday.

The Lunch Tray has a Thanksgiving message about childhood hunger, and Beyond BONES relates a more complete history of Thanksgiving.

Michael Brick cheers as more offensive team nicknames bite the dust.

TransGriot reveals the Secret Trans Agenda.

Grits for Breakfast references a podcast from the Cato Institute that refers to Texas police unions using 'the playbook of Saul Alinsky'.

Prairie Weather wants to know if you'd let one of your children marry a Trump supporter.

TFN Insider wonders if a Texas state representative believes that the Colorado Planned Parenthood shootings were justified.

Last, Fascist Dyke Motors advises everyone to never meet their heroes.

Turner, King debate December 5

Via Mike McGuff, via teevee station press release:

KHOU 11, Houston Public Media and Free Press Houston are bringing Houston mayoral candidates Bill King and Sylvester Turner to the stage for HOU Decide: King vs. Turner, airing live at 7 p.m. Saturday, Dec. 5 on (the local CBS affiliate). 

The debate comes in the middle of the early voting period, which opens Wednesday, December 2 (typo corrected) and closes on Tuesday, December 8.  Election Day is Saturday, December 12.  Here's my preferred candidates in the runoff.

Sylvester Turner received 32 percent of the vote in November, while King received 24 percent. The debate will cover a variety of topics Houstonians care about, and the candidates will be challenged to also ask questions of each other. [...] The public is invited to submit their questions for consideration via social media using the hashtag #HOUDecide starting now.

No polling for the mayoral runoff that I have seen yet.

In addition to airing on KHOU 11, the debate will broadcast live on News 88.7 at 7 p.m. Dec. 5. The debate may be viewed on KHOU.com, houstonpublicmedia.org and freepresshouston.com, as well as each partner’s social media pages. A rebroadcast of the debate will air on Houston Public Media TV 8 at 9 p.m. Dec. 6. 

This group of media outlets, with many of the same moderators, sponsored the last mayoral forum before the general election and did a reasonably good job, especially in their follow-up reporting.

A low turnout favors the GOP-connected candidates, so if you really want a Merry Christmas and a Happy New (Four) Year(s), you'll make time in between football and shopping and Christmas decorating and cooking for a quick trip to the polls.

Leftover Turkey Toons

Aldous Huxley vs. George Orwell: Who got it right?

And perhaps both of them got it right.  You know... market-based totalitarianism.  Here's more if you want to dive a little deeper.  It's lengthy, so be mindful of your 'almost infinite appetite for distractions'.

More turkeys and more toons

Happy Thanksgiving!

Texas conservatives may finally have to admit that a bevy of lawsuits can't stop the Clean Power Plan before it goes into effect in 2018.  How sad for them.

Obama reminds certain governors -- *cough* Greg Abbott *cough* --  that they have no legal authority to refuse to take Syrian refugees.

Thanks to Erica Grieder at Texas Monthly for offering the perfect solution to our fears about a Donald Trump candidacy.

"Texas GOP in disarray as some leaders call for moving convention from LGBT-friendly Dallas"

Some Texas Turkeys for the holiday

-- Texas SREC member wants secession on the primary ballot.  You go, girl:

A member of the executive committee for the Republican Party of Texas plans to introduce a resolution at the group's next meeting, which would add to the party's primary ballot a non-binding measure for Texas secession. Party leadership calls the prospect unlikely.

Tanya Robertson, State Republican Executive Committee member for Senate District 11, which covers parts of Harris, Galveston and Brazoria counties, said she'll present the resolution at the committee's December 4 meeting in Austin, and that she already has support from a few other members.

"There's been a big groundswell of Texans that are getting into the Texas independence issue," she said, citing conversations she's had with constituents. "I believe conservatives in Texas should have a choice to voice their opinion."

Yes they should.  Here's mine: you're a moron, Tanya.  I hope your resolution gets on your party's primary ballot, and I hope your fellow morons vote for it.  And then I want all you morons to take down your Stars and Stripes, burn your "USA" caps and shirts, and GTF out of my country.

-- I admire this lady's determination.  I just hope some conservative fool doesn't shoot her.

In the race to replace state Representative Scott Turner, a Collin County Republican, there’s one candidate who doesn’t have a prayer.

No Democrat running in this conservative stronghold has a clear path to the Legislature, really, but Cristin Padgett is going out on a limb to let voters know from the outset that she has “no religious affiliation or belief in a higher being.”

“I don’t want to make it a big deal, but I do want people to open up and think critically about it,” Padgett told the Observer. I had called to follow up on an email from her campaign bearing the subject line, “Will Texas Elect an Atheist?”

She said she wanted to get the question out of the way early in her campaign. “It’s going to be a concern for people,” she said. “People are afraid of what they don’t understand.”

Especially Texas Republicans (but also, sadly, too many Democrats).  There is some history for such a Quixotic undertaking here in Deep-In-The-Hearta.

Indeed, atheist campaigners who’ve gone before her have left some lonely footprints in the sand. Daniel Moran, an atheist college student who ran against state Representative Tan Parker last year — and who said he was Texas’ first openly atheist Lege candidate — didn’t crack 25 percent of the vote. Atheists were nothing but a punch line for Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller in his video holiday greeting last year. And last November, Austin City Council candidate Laura Pressley argued that because her opponent, Greg Casar, was an atheist, he was ineligible to run for office.

Pressley, who lost, was wrong about one thing: Casar isn’t godless, he’s Catholic. But she knew her Texas Constitution: Article I firmly bans “religious tests” for any elected official, “provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.” It’s unenforceable, of course. Former Attorney General Jim Mattox agreed as much three decades ago, although it’s precisely the sort of molehill upon which today’s Texas leadership would love to plant their crosses.

I'm right there with her.  Hell, I'd have run for office years ago if I thought I wouldn't be assassinated for my atheism.  (Really and truly.)  Ms. Padgett has her appeal well articulated.

What’s more important to Padgett is that the constitutional ban on atheist officeholders — which also fails to imagine anyone but a man in elected office — is consistent with the way Texas politics tends to alienate young people today.

“Politicians such as Ted Cruz, Greg Abbott, they associate Texas values with ethnocentric beliefs,” Padgett said. “What happens to every other Texan who doesn’t agree with that? … It’s turning people off from the democratic process. We keep seeing the wrong people put into office by default. Not by choice, by default. And it’s sad to watch.”

In a periodic nationwide survey by the Pew Research Center, 2014 was the first time that, among self-identified Democrats, the religiously “unaffiliated” outnumbered Catholics, evangelicals, or any other faith group. Just half of millennials said they believe in the existence of God “with absolute certainty,” while for baby boomers and older Americans, the figure was 70 percent. To Padgett, such trends suggest that secularism won’t amount to sacrilege at the Capitol forever.

“Twenty-five percent of registered voters in my district are millennials,” Padgett says, “but the issue is that they don’t vote.” Her campaign website even includes “A Message to the Millennials.” She’s counting on luring those young folks to the polls to upset her primary opponent, retired Raytheon Program Director Karen Jacobs, who is more deeply entrenched in the Rockwall Democratic community — and then pulling off a miracle in November.

All the best to her.  The turkeys in this segment look like the good ol' boys in the photos above.  What you can't see in the pictures is that they have crapped their pants full several times in the past few years over things like Ebola, and Latino children coming across the southern border, and now, of course, Syrian refugees.

I'm doubtful an atheist can help the residents of Collin County see the light.  But thank the FSM she's giving it a try.

-- Erica Grieder at Texas Monthly, on Donald Trump:

In August, I noted that Republicans were “starting to get seriously nervous about their Trump problem, without fully understanding the nature of the problem, or its severity.” Donald Trump, at that point, was the frontrunner for the party’s presidential nomination, and had been for much of the summer. Many on the right were clearly inclined to disavow him—historically, Trump has not been a Republican, much less a conservative—and to dismiss his popularity as a mirage, a sort of sinister summer fling on the part of a cynical electorate with an appetite for political theater.

Now here we are in November, barely two months away from the Iowa caucuses, which will be held on February 1. Trump remains the frontrunner for the Republican nomination; his lead has actually grown since I wrote that ominous post in August. At this point, Americans on both sides of the aisle are starting to get nervous about Trump’s apparently durable popularity. “‘We’re potentially careening down this road of nominating somebody who frankly isn’t fit to be president in terms of the basic ability and temperament to do the job,’’ as one Republican strategist told the Washington Post’s Philip Rucker and Robert Costa earlier this month. And as he continued, Americans can’t take much comfort in the fact that a major party’s suboptimal presidential nominee will inevitably mitigated by the candidate chosen by the other: “What if Hillary hits a banana peel and this person becomes president?”

That's my concern.  Hillary's slipping on banana peels nearly every single day already.  Skipping to the end...

As I wrote in August, Trump’s defeat would only mean the end of America’s proximate problem. The underlying problem is that one of our two major parties is so receptive to someone so hateful, toxic, divisive and belligerent; Trump is only a symptom of that problem.

She's supposed to have a good news follow-up today.  I'll keep a watch out and update here when she does.  Update: Grieder says that Ted Cruz, obviously, is going to win the Republican nomination -- or at least the Iowa caucus, anyway -- and that will eliminate Trump and thus we'll all be better off.

I didn't think even Eric Grieder was this stupid until now.  Partisan and somewhat thick-headed, but not stone-cold stupid.  In the spirit of the holiday, I'm going to leave my analysis at that and let you just read her take.  It's kind of a disgrace what Texas Monthly has turned into, but I suppose they need all the Republican advertising dollars they can manage.

Enjoy your bird or your swine and all the carb-heavy trimmings tomorrow.

The P Slate for the runoff

I believe I have spent enough time on these to go ahead and release them now.  My list is much the same as the Tejano Dems with one exception: no endorsement in AL 5.  Sharon Moses missed it by a country mile; see below for the reason.

For Mayor, Houston: Sylvester Turner (can any Turner campaign people get me a yard sign, maybe a walk list for my two precincts?  Get in touch with me, please).

For Controller, Houston: Chris Brown.

For Houston City Council, District F: Richard Nguyen.  This incumbent needs the most help, and the Republicans will flip the seat if Democrats don't find enough Vietnamese-speaking campaign workers to turn out his vote.

For District H: Jason Cisneroz.  As mentioned before, I would prefer someone younger and more enthusiastic over someone who married into a Latino surname and is using Marc Campos as a consultant (scroll down to the end).  That guy has turned into a permanent deal-breaker for me.  No voy a votar por cualquiera de sus clientes. Nunca más.

For District J: Mike Laster.  One of the most valuable members needed back on Council.

For At Large 1: Georgia Provost.  She would be better than Mike Knox by a far cry, even if there aren't enough good reasons to elect her.  A 'hold-your-nose' pick.

For At Large 2: David Robinson.  CM Robinson needs to raise his profile a lot in order to avoid this runoff precariousness next time (if there is a next time).

For At Large 4: Amanda Edwards.  Your best choice anywhere on the ballot.  If you only voted in two citywide races -- the mayor's and this one -- your ballot would pass muster with me.

For At Large 5: Neither.  Here's why I'm not voting for Moses.

For HISD Trustee, District II: Rhonda Skillern Jones.

For HISD Trustee, District III: Jose Leal.  Let's get rid of the homophobe on the board, folks.

As for predictions, the fate of many Democrats down the ballot turns on how well Turner's team gets out the vote.  This should especially be the case for candidates on the bubble, like Laster and Provost and Robinson and Moses, perhaps even Brown in the controller's race.  If Dems stay home, it could get really ugly.  I don't want to think about how ugly, either.

Early voting for the Saturday, December 12 runoff election begins on Wednesday, December 2nd (that's next week) and concludes on Tuesday, December 8.  It's already crunch time, folks.

Scattershooting World War III, and more important topics

-- "World War III" is trending again on Twitter (mostly because some dude has predicted apocalypse in June, and also because people are reTweeting 'WWIII is trending on Twitter').  But there is trouble:

BREAKING: Video allegedly shows dead Russian Su-24 pilot surrounded by rebels (GRAPHIC) https://t.co/ojq16BM5I5 pic.twitter.com/PFis13Wqo0

— RT (@RT_com) November 24, 2015

I wonder if I have time to eat breakfast before we all go up in a flaming mushroom cloud.  Please be reminded, via Ted Rall, that everybody has the blood of innocent victims on their hands.

People in the West wonder where the Islamic State will strike next after the Paris attacks. Some commentators wonder aloud whether ISIS would strike a hospital, ignoring the irony that the U.S. blew up a hospital in Afghanistan recently.

-- While we wait for The End, Killer Mike had lunch yesterday with Bernie Sanders...

Bernie Sanders and rapper Killer Mike at Busy Bee in Atlanta. pic.twitter.com/jqOiLlMgrQ

— John Wagner (@WPJohnWagner) November 23, 2015

... and endorsed his candidacy for president at an Atlanta rally.   Egberto thinks it's a big deal, and certainly it is.  There's still a lot of ground to cover between now and, oh, Super Tuesday in March.... if you believe that the polling has not excluded a lot of millenials.

Maybe it has and maybe it hasn't.  If the polls get flipped on their ear by massive numbers of young and minority voters turning out for Sanders, then our political revolution may finally have arrived.

I'm still skeptimistic, but have a bit more hope today.

-- Worth repeating: Poor white voters aren't voting Republican; they're not voting at all.  First Draft with a little more (caustic) insight.

Nobody is talking to them. Nobody. I’m goddamn sick of hearing the condescending crap that poor white people vote against their own best interests. NO THEY DON’T. They don’t vote, period, because nobody has made them a priority. Not Republicans and not Democrats who are trying to act like Republicans, not for the last 40 years at least. Nobody has given a shit about these people since RFK and we’re gonna sit here and talk about how they’re just too dumb to know they’re going to get screwed? Thank you, no.

Where exactly are they supposed to get their information, by the way? If these people have been abandoned by politicians they’ve also been abandoned by news organizations that are supposed to be making a good faith effort to inform them. Who covers poor communities? I used to do it and I’ll tell you who does it: No one. Unless there’s a shooting, a convenient lesson to package up as a cautionary tale for scared rich suburbanites, no one covers the poorest communities in America. There’s no advertising to be sold there, no subscriptions, and certainly nobody there is signing up for the newest hyperlocal app, so fuck those places and those people, they don’t deserve the news.

This ignorance isn’t about anything other than we threw these people out and we get mad that they don’t care about what we care about. It’s nonsense. When is the last time a presidential candidate spoke to them? When is the last time a campaign put resources where it never had before and got poor people to vote? When is the last time anyone fought for them?

Democrats and/or Greens: this is your wakeup call.  Don't hit the snooze.

-- Five Republican presidential candidates will receive 60 minutes of equal time -- in exchange for Trump's SNL appearance -- during Black Friday weekend.  Via Ballot Access News and Rick Hasen, the blog linked in the excerpt below (and streamed via RSS feed into the right hand column).

Arizona's Politics is learning details on how NBC and its affiliates are giving equal time to five of Donald Trump's GOP presidential rivals, in response to his November 7 "Saturday Night Live" hosting gig. The requesting candidates -- none of whom are among those closest to him in the current polls -- will receive their 12 minutes of free airtime spread out in small chunks this coming Friday and Saturday.

A reliable source with knowledge tells Arizona's Politics that the time will be allocated on the NBC affiliates in the three earliest-voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Each candidate will receive network commercial and promo time during primetime hours on "Black Friday" and Saturday, November 27 and 28, as well as during SNL on the 28th.

There are five settling candidates: Ohio Gov. John Kasich, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, former NY Gov. George Pataki, and former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore.

With each receiving slightly more than 12 minutes of unfiltered airtime, NBC's tab will run to approximately 120 30-second spots. No word yet on how the candidates will be using their 12:05.

Hilarious.  What will they do for Bobby Jindal, I wonder?  I suppose the front-runners will wait to get theirs later.  Update: More here, and indicating Pataki hasn't agreed to the terms, though NBC has offered the same settlement the other four took.  Which suggests the leading candidates -- and Jindal -- weren't part of the original complaint, and won't be granted any free airtime.

-- Fort Bend-area state representative and disgraced Democrat Ron Reynolds has been sentenced to a year in jail for soliciting legal clients via paid recruitment.  AKA ambulance-chasing.

According to the Houston Chronicle, which first reported the sentence, Reynolds was escorted out of the Montgomery County courtroom by deputies and taken to jail after jurors returned the sentence.

The charges stem from a 2013 sting that nabbed Reynolds, who was initially charged with felony barratry, and seven other Houston-area attorneys accused in an "ambulance chasing for hire" racket. According to prosecutors, the attorneys enjoyed the services of a four-time felon named Robert Ramirez Valdez, Sr., who would scour police reports for the names of accident victims and persuade them to sign on for legal representation. Prosecutors claimed that Valdez, who testified against Reynolds last week, was paid on average $1,000 per client referred to Reynolds' Bellaire law firm.

While the other attorneys accused of using Valdez, who's currently serving a five-year prison sentence for his part in the scheme, struck plea deals with prosecutors and avoided jail time, Reynolds insisted on taking his case to trial. He was convicted on six counts of misdemeanor barratry last year, but a judge tossed the conviction and ordered a retrial after a juror on the case claimed her decision was influenced by the fact that other attorneys had already admitted to being involved in the scheme. 

He's appealing.  Let's see if the voters in his district can get him replaced in the statehouse with someone who is less dumb and less corrupt.  Which is the same thing as saying 'not a Republican'.

-- "Why Turkey is So Awful, and How You Can Make It Better".  You still have time, Chef.