The Weekly Wrangle

With nearly all eyes and ears focused on the hourly breaking developments surrounding Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh today, the Texas Progressive Alliance's weekly roundup of blog posts and lefty news captures reactions to the Beto O'Rourke-Ted Cruz debate last Friday night.

Cruz got a poor review from Justin Miller at the Texas Observer for his frothing, off-topic attacks on Hillary Clinton, George Soros, and "soshulists", apparently in his reality surrogates for O'Rourke.

Undeterred by recent polls showing the race in a dead heat, Cruz used the debate to double down on his core campaign strategy: igniting a fire underneath his conservative base, confident that their numbers are enough to win if they turn out in force. In his attempts to present O’Rourke through a kaleidoscope lens of Fox News fears, Cruz twisted and prodded with bad-faith attacks — coming across as a snide, oily weasel to the people who already hate him while pushing all the right buttons for the people he was really talking to.

O’Rourke often found himself on his heels, trying to parry Cruz’s slippery accusations — at one point, when Cruz accused him of not supporting the Second Amendment, O’Rourke stared him down from across the stage: “That’s not true. Of course I support the Second Amendment.”

Kevin Diaz at the Houston Chronicle used the already worn-out "knife fight" analogy and suggested Cruz won the debate.  He quoted two political science professors, one who fell back on prizefighting metaphors ...

"If this were a boxing match, Cruz would get the judges' decision but would exit the ring having taken some serious blows," said Brandon Rottinghaus, a University of Houston political scientist.

O'Rourke, by comparison, seemed less fluid and aggressive. "O'Rourke showed he can stick and move but needs to get a knockout in the town hall debate coming up (in Houston September 30) ..."

... and one who offered a better question to ponder.

"It's helpful to have two articulate candidates from opposite parties engage so spiritedly and defiantly in presenting their versions of Texas," said Sean Theriault, a political scientist at the University of Texas in Austin. "Is it the Texas that elects people like (Christian conservative Lt. Gov.) Dan Patrick by big margins, or has the future long promised by demographers finally arrived?"

Diaz teamed up with the Chron's Jeremy Wallace to describe the two men's effort as respective appeals to motivating their voters to turn out.

RG Ratcliffe at Texas Monthly did not pick a winner, but thought O'Rourke's neck veins were a little stressed.  (I think he's just not as puffy as Cruz.)

The week would not be complete without Cruz mischaracterizing O'Rourke's statement about the "New Jim Crow", and hilariously having another Tweet backfire on him.

So let me ask you something @tedcruz — is it “Texas” to deliberately misquote your opponent by accusing him of calling police racist when he’s actually referring to the title of a best-selling book by Michelle Alexander? https://t.co/8jpic5D1Ag https://t.co/89wHVZtAuh

— Andrew Feinberg (@AndrewFeinberg) September 22, 2018

Last, Socratic Gadfly wonders why Texans holding a DSA rose are lining up behind Beto.

PDiddie at Brains and Eggs lists the Texas Democrats he'll be voting for in November, as well as the ones he won't.  And in the wake of SD-19's GOP upset by retired game warden Pete Flores of longtime pol Pete Gallego, PDiddie offered some advice to Texas Democrats on how to save their blue wave.  Stephen Young at the Dallas Observer quoted Dan Patrick as saying 'the tide is out'.

Additional post-mortems of last Tuesday's SD-19 special election -- complete with eulogies of the Texas Democratic Party -- arrived via the TO, TM (don't miss the comments here), and the Texas Standard.

Scott Henson at Grits for Breakfast links to an NYT piece that reveals a shocking test result: most crime labs analyzing DNA evidence accuse the wrong people of committing a crime.  And in his statewide roundup of criminal justice news, the Houston Chronicle's Keri Blakinger told the story of Texas inmates who are refused dentures.

The Texas Tribune via Progrexas writes about the $430 billion farm bill, which is nerve-wrackingly close to expiring, leaving Texas farmers in the lurch.

US Rep. Mike Conaway, R-Midland, and other members of the House Committee on Agriculture visit a wool processing fiber mill in San Angelo on July 31, 2017. Photo courtesy Austin Price, Texas Tribune

Congressional leaders are just days away from a deadline to work out a compromise on a massive farm bill or risk a lapse in funding for crucial safety net programs used by thousands of Texas farmers.

Ahead of a Sept. 30 deadline, Congress returns this week with just four legislative days to reconcile differences between the House and Senate legislation, pass the bill through both chambers and send it to the president’s desk before safety net funding dries up.

The bill, which comes with a $430 billion price tag over five years, is particularly important for Texas, which leads the nation in number of farms and ranches, according to the Texas Department of Agriculture. One in seven Texans also works in an agriculture-related job, according to the department.

The farm bill includes a vital crop insurance program for farmers that provides financial protection against crop destruction. The crop insurance program is the second largest program in the bill and made up 8 percent of the last farm bill. The insurance has become an increasingly important lifeline for Texas farmers, many of whom are struggling due to drought in west Texas or flood damage closer to Houston, said Laramie Adams, national legislative director of the Texas Farm Bureau, a group that advocates on behalf of Texas farmers and ranchers.

“They have no safety net, no way of surviving if you don’t have crop insurance in place in order to pick them up and allow them to be able to invest in the next growing season,” said Adams.

Much more at the link, including the politics complicating the matter.

Kennedi W. at Houston Justice describes #ProjectOrange's successful voter registration drive.

Civil rights groups are changing bail practices in Texas one city at a time, writes Michael Barajas at the Texas Observer.

Murray Polner at The Rag Blog wonders if there are any honest and independent observers still available to sort out the truth.

David Collins has a review of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 11/9".

And Harry Hamid wishes he had another hole in his head where the memory of the presidential candidate he voted for in 2016 resides.

Sunday KavaNO Funnies

Three Senators who served on the Judiciary Committee in 1991 -- and heard the testimony of Dr. Anita Hill during the confirmation hearings for Justice Clarence Thomas -- serve on it today.  Can you name the third without looking?  Hint: he's not a Republican.  Thomas was confirmed 52-48 by the Senate in October of that year with the votes of 10 conservative Democrats.  Two Republicans, Bob Packwood of Oregon (LOL) and Jim Jeffords of Vermont, voted against Thomas.

Kavanaugh was a member of 'T 'n C' at Yale, which means ... (NSFW)

From 1991, and the 'some things never change' department ...

The Texas Democrats I cannot vote for

So Beto/Bob had a very good night last.



He was composed and articulate and cool with the Clash reference and calm with the last retort to Poop Cruz's 'compliment'.  #TrueToForm is tailor-made for a meme or a tee shirt.

The Zodiac Killer was neurotic.  A barely-managed frantic, a slightly concealed flustered, and an undisguised contemptuous, all while throwing every piece of extreme conservative red meat against the wall hoping something would stick.  Reviews were poor for him.

Undeterred by recent polls showing the race in a dead heat, Cruz used the debate to double down on his core campaign strategy: igniting a fire underneath his conservative base, confident that their numbers are enough to win if they turn out in force. In his attempts to present O’Rourke through a kaleidoscope lens of Fox News fears, Cruz twisted and prodded with bad-faith attacks — coming across as a snide, oily weasel to the people who already hate him while pushing all the right buttons for the people he was really talking to.

[...]

O’Rourke, in what became a theme of the debate, shot back. “This is why people don’t like Washington, D.C. You just said something that I did not say and attributed it to me,” he said, ostensibly referring to Cruz’s Jim Crow attacks. “This is your trick of the trade, to confuse and incite based on fear.”

[...]

In response to what he called O’Rourke’s “soliloquy on the civil rights movement,” Cruz said, “One of the reasons I’m a Republican is because civil rights legislation was passed with the overwhelming support of Republicans. And indeed, the Dixiecrats,” Cruz said, turning to face O’Rourke, “were the ones imposing Jim Crow. The Dixiecrats who were beating those protesters were Democrats.” In that, Cruz was shamelessly aping the rhetoric of right-wing provocateur Dinesh D’Souza — whose presidential pardon he aggressively lobbied for. D’Souza makes a living hawking ahistorical screeds, including the notion that Democrats have always been the real racists.

As foul as Cruz is, I still cannot vote for Beto.

And the same still goes for Elizabeth Fletcher.  In her recent ad she's emphasized Democrats and Republicans "need(ing) to work together", without much beyond Harvey relief in the way of specifics.  So I would simply ask: for what purpose, Ms. Fletcher?  Impeaching Trump?  Passing Medicare For All?  A living wage?  Bail reform? 

I have stated multiple reasons why I just can't cast a ballot for O'Rourke and Fletcher, but if you still need another one, it would be the time and effort they have both spent attempting to persuade whatever quantity of disenchanted-with-Trump GOP votes there may be in Texas (and with Culberson in TX-7).  Indeed, if this is their path to victory, it is clear they won't be accountable to me for my most important issue, universal single payer healthcare, or anything else of a progressive/ democratic socialist bent.  Because they'll be keeping one eye on their next run for office.  Which, in Beto's case, might be the White House in 2020.

(I'll take a hard pass on that right now.)

But the two other statewide Democrats who have pursued a similar strategy that don't get my vote are agriculture commissioner candidate  Kim Olson and lieutenant governor challenger Mike Collier.

I wish I could; I certainly made every effort to get to a point where I could.

Olson fails for a handful of reasons: she was Jay Garner's right-hand gal when GW Bush needed someone to oversee Iraqi rebuilding for the 2003 war the Decider-in-Chief had just waged.  From that grew a controversy about the awarding of contracts that ultimately forced Olson out of the military.  The Texas Tribune and the Austin Statesman (link below) have your deep dives.

The Los Angeles Times reported on the allegations against Olson in 2006, and she discusses the episode at length in her memoir, “Iraq and Back.” But until the Austin American-Statesman published a story about the investigation earlier this month, the ignominious end to Olson's military career had not figured in the race for agriculture commissioner.

Olson dares me not to judge her unless I've been to a "frickin' war".  Sorry, Colonel; I do not accept your prerequisite.  That's not how politics works.

Now there's at least two people who are so bowled over by Olson's swagger that they consider this badassery.  That would be Beto O'Rourke and Charles Kuffner.  I'm of the opinion that if Kim Olson is your idea of a badass, you might be a bit of a wuss yourself.

Perhaps you can see my various and recent criticisms starting to coalesce here.  Wars, establishment Democrats, votes to authorize more spending for wars, all while whining "how will we pay for" Medicare for all, or raising the federal minimum wage, etc.  A question that never gets asked every time the Pentagon requests another dozen billion dollars every quarter.

We have to change Democrats' thinking about this sometime, somewhere.  Might as well be in the Texas ag commissioner's race.  A crine ass shame too, because Sid Miller truly blows goats.

You can watch a short faceoff between Olson and Miller here, courtesy TexTrib and Progrexas.

Texas Donkeys have essentially the same problem in 2018 as they did in 2014: a Republican nominated by the Texas Democratic Party.  "At least she isn't Jim Hogan" isn't good enough to get my vote.  Olson hasn't been reticent in the slightest about encouraging crossover votes.  Please ... do share that with your Republican friends and family, as she requests at the very end.

She's going to need all the help like that she can get.

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

Collier, to my POV, has been less offensive about the ask but no less relentless about asking.  And it seems to be working for him: he appears to have almost convinced Big Jolly to switch going back to April.  That's a kind of a big deal.

This past week was Collier's turn with Evan Smith.  The Republican-turned-Democrat acquits himself well for the most part, repeating his ongoing broadsides against the abomination that is Dan Patrick, and property taxes, and public school funding, but the slip I noticed was when he was asked in which chamber of the Lege do bills originate.  He did not know, and brushed it off as unimportant.  That's close to a fatal error in my book.

Leticia van de Putte got 38% in this race four years ago against the Number One Bum Steer in Texas (Monthly).  Can Mike Collier do better than she?  I am anxious to see.

Update: I overlooked mentioning this email from Collier's campaign that arrived immediately after the SD-19 calamity last Tuesday (I've left the bold emphasis but deleted the gold highlights).

As if Mike’s race wasn’t important enough already - it's now the most important race in Texas. Last night, the special election in Senate District 19 saw Democrat Pete Gallego lose to Republican Pete Flores, who had the help of big money from Do-Nothing-Dan.

What that means: The loss scenario in this race just went from terrible to catastrophic for Texans. Currently, our state senate requires a three-fifths majority to introduce any legislation, and now the Republicans will likely have a supermajority (21/10) leaving the Democrats fighting for lower property taxes, teacher pay, and healthcare, completely voiceless.

If we don't elect Mike, everything Republicans put forward will go uncontested with no check against the damage it could do to everyday Texans. Imagine for a second: a Republican supermajority in the Senate, with a vacant Democratic seat to boot, and no Joe Straus to temper the craziness in the House. Dan Patrick would now be unchecked in his control of the Texas Legislature — we’d see a comeback for school vouchers, even higher property taxes and yes, a return of the bathroom bill.

Perry, if we lose this race, there will now be nothing standing in the way of these anti-business, anti-Texan policies – nothing at all.

Well, .@CollierForTexas, it looks like you are now runnng the most important race in the State of Texas.#TxDems

— Gina Hinojosa (@GinaForAustin) September 19, 2018

This is exactly the kind of fear-mongering you'd expect to motivate Republican voters, after all.  And I have found Gilberto Hinojosa's daughter to be nearly as offensive in her relentless Blue Dog shilling as her father.  Surely the people who sent Elliot Naishtat to Austin for many years can find a more suitable progressive replacement for this legacy flack in 2020.

My vote is never going to be coerced like this.

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

I could go on a bit more, but I will end an already-long post with a few provisos.

-- First, I am not opposed to 'Democrats and Republicans working together'.  This post, also from Big Jolly's shop, offered a few opportunities for that.  I cannot tell if there has been any follow-up by Democrats to SD-11 GOP Chair Scott Bowen's suggestions. (Senate District 11, south and southeast Harris County encompassing the area commonly referred to as Clear Lake but also Galveston and Freeport, is represented by Republican Larry Taylor.  I don't know who the chair is but the two SDEC members are Susan Criss and Quentin Wiltz.  I do know that the wrong emissary to send to any meeting would be John Cobarruvias.)

-- High-profile Republicans endorsing Democrats in this cycle is indeed a movement.

-- Again: If you want to vote for these Democrats, like Mrs. Diddie, or a straight Democratic ticket for that matter, go on.  Twenty eighteen is that kind of year.  I won't hold your voting for shithole conservative establishment Dems against you if you won't hold my undervotes against me.  What I will hold against you is your undervoting a Democrat who happens to be to left of you, like Franklin Bynum for Harris County court.  That I will not abide.  And if you do that, you had better find the nads to say so publicly.

You're the MFer squealing #VoteBlueNoMatterWho, not me.

-- If O'Rourke, Fletcher, Olson, Collier, or James Horwitz (Harris County judicial Democrat) should lose their races by one vote, feel free to blame me.  Not the Republicans who did not cross over, or the undervoters who didn't make it to the bottom of the very lengthy Harris County ballot.

If they lose by 50 or a hundred votes -- let's say, up to a thousand -- you might add to your blame game the above plus a few folks who did not show up to vote, for whatever reasons of their own.  Any creed you choose.

If they lose by more than a thousand votes, then add to those above a campaign that did not quite execute its GOTV strategy as well as it could have.

DO NOT BLAME UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE: Green Party voters, Russian hackers.

Because we all want to believe that Democrats are not stupid.