Sunday, September 30, 2018
Friday, September 28, 2018
Valdez v. Abbott tonight
In their one and only match of the season.
/https://static.texastribune.org/media/files/9043f050dadface3aa10782d1fb9af64/Valdez_Abbott_3_TT.jpg)
I'm hoping she acquits herself well. A good showing tonight, with some further tightening of the polling, coupled with renewed interest in Latin@s turning out for her would mean the incumbent would have to a) shoot more of his giant wad on himself and less on others; b) put a little fear of Gawd into Gov'nah Holy Roller and compel him to stop ignoring his opponent, as his re-election campaigns have so often done.
But Valdez is prone to the unforced error, as we know, so let's expect that she is prepped but not overly so, calm but aggressive, cool under fire but not blase'. A tall but not unreachable order.
I've buried the lede here: I'll be voting for Lupe for governor. I even sent her a small contribution, her fundraising being what it is.
There were obviously plenty of reasons for me not to, and I don't feel like re-listing them. (Gadfly will probably do that once he reads this.) There are nearly no options beyond D, R, and L on this year's ballot for statewide candidates, and qualified write-ins are limited to a handful of downballot races. I'm already undervoting the two federal contests at the top of my ballot, US Senate and Congressional Seventh, along with the Lite Gov and Ag Commish races. My ballot is going to be pretty thin after I skip so many high-profile matches, employing the only tool the state of Texas allows as a NOTA vote.
What ultimately persuaded me to vote for Valdez was reading, and re-reading, this article in the Austin Statesman a few weeks back, describing her POV as a landlord (lady?).
My primary voting issue this cycle is single payer healthcare. Medicare for All, if you prefer. 'Access to healthcare' is mealy-mouthed consultant-speak for "I'm not supporting that". (I have already made an exception to this rule for Justin Nelson.) Close behind that is not voting for Democrats who are loudly pandering to centrist Republicans for their crossover votes.
(Beto O'Rourke has been doing this tapdance on healthcare all year, and seems to have 99% of Texans fooled about it. Lizzie Fletcher choked on both this week. Longer post later.)
Lupe wins my vote because she cares about poor people at a time when there are precious few politicians that do. And she has put her money where her heart is.
That is more than good enough for me.
Gov. Greg Abbott and his Democratic opponent, Lupe Valdez, are facing off in their first and only debate Friday evening in Austin.
The hourlong event is set to begin 7 p.m. at the Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library, and it is being hosted by the Nexstar Media Group. Nexstar will air the debate on its 12 stations throughout the state as well as broadcast partners in Houston, San Antonio, Corpus Christi and Dallas. Some Telemundo stations will also carry the debate, and a livestream of it will be available on the websites of the 12 Nexstar stations.
I'm hoping she acquits herself well. A good showing tonight, with some further tightening of the polling, coupled with renewed interest in Latin@s turning out for her would mean the incumbent would have to a) shoot more of his giant wad on himself and less on others; b) put a little fear of Gawd into Gov'nah Holy Roller and compel him to stop ignoring his opponent, as his re-election campaigns have so often done.
But Valdez is prone to the unforced error, as we know, so let's expect that she is prepped but not overly so, calm but aggressive, cool under fire but not blase'. A tall but not unreachable order.
I've buried the lede here: I'll be voting for Lupe for governor. I even sent her a small contribution, her fundraising being what it is.
There were obviously plenty of reasons for me not to, and I don't feel like re-listing them. (Gadfly will probably do that once he reads this.) There are nearly no options beyond D, R, and L on this year's ballot for statewide candidates, and qualified write-ins are limited to a handful of downballot races. I'm already undervoting the two federal contests at the top of my ballot, US Senate and Congressional Seventh, along with the Lite Gov and Ag Commish races. My ballot is going to be pretty thin after I skip so many high-profile matches, employing the only tool the state of Texas allows as a NOTA vote.
What ultimately persuaded me to vote for Valdez was reading, and re-reading, this article in the Austin Statesman a few weeks back, describing her POV as a landlord (lady?).
Colin Howell and Jayme Thompson have a dream to start a mobile food truck — the Flying Pineapple Baking Company — selling retro desserts in Dallas-Fort Worth.
What’s made the numbers work on their ambition is their phenomenal rent — $700 a month for a piece of a fourplex on the outskirts of Oak Cliff’s trendy Bishop Arts District.
“This is Bishop Arts. For what?” Howell said he responded when he was shown the place and told the rent. “It’s like half the price of all the other places around here. It’s great.”
The couple’s landlord — Lupe Valdez, the former Dallas County sheriff and current Democratic candidate for governor — said the low rent was about giving Howell and Thompson a chance to succeed.
“That gave them the opportunity to be able to go beyond themselves and be able to start the food truck and be able to get engaged and be able to do things they would never have been able to do if they had to spend so much to be in an area like this. It’s about giving people the opportunity to get beyond themselves,” Valdez said.
For 25 years, Valdez — alongside jobs as sheriff and a federal agent for various agencies, including Customs and Homeland Security — has purchased properties in Oak Cliff, fixed them up with her own money and muscle, and rented them at below-market rates in what she describes as an act of entrepreneurial social conscience and giving back.
“These people are getting an opportunity that somebody gave me,” Valdez said. “You’ve got to pay it forward, except I’m doing it eight times or 10 times more than it was done for me.”
My primary voting issue this cycle is single payer healthcare. Medicare for All, if you prefer. 'Access to healthcare' is mealy-mouthed consultant-speak for "I'm not supporting that". (I have already made an exception to this rule for Justin Nelson.) Close behind that is not voting for Democrats who are loudly pandering to centrist Republicans for their crossover votes.
(Beto O'Rourke has been doing this tapdance on healthcare all year, and seems to have 99% of Texans fooled about it. Lizzie Fletcher choked on both this week. Longer post later.)
Lupe wins my vote because she cares about poor people at a time when there are precious few politicians that do. And she has put her money where her heart is.
That is more than good enough for me.
Thursday, September 27, 2018
'A day that will resonate in history'
When Supreme Court pick Brett Kavanaugh and his original accuser Christine Blasey Ford deliver dueling testimony (later this morning), they will conjure drama of an intensity unusual even in the Trump administration.
In Room 226 in the Dirksen Senate Office building, Kavanaugh will effectively stand trial after three women came forward with accusations about his conduct as a teenager in the alcohol-fueled youth party culture of the early 1980s.
"I will not be intimidated into withdrawing from this process. This effort to destroy my good name will not drive me out," Kavanaugh will tell senators, while denying all the accusations against him, according to an advance excerpt of his remarks. Kavanaugh also denied new accusations released in Senate Judiciary Committee transcripts Wednesday night.
But first, Ford will step forward to tell her story -- exposing herself to the world, instantly becoming an icon of the social revolution unleashed by the #MeToo moment and putting her own reputation and her family's safety at risk.
"I am here today not because I want to be. I am terrified," Ford will tell the committee, according to an early copy of her testimony.
"It is not my responsibility to determine whether Mr. Kavanaugh deserves to sit on the Supreme Court. My responsibility is to tell the truth."
Thursday is about far more than a painful and compelling human drama that will be decided not by a jury, but the votes of 100 senators. It is the culmination of decades of political and societal forces that have led up to a political pivot point.
I'll be live-Tweeting the hearings; follow along by keeping an eye on the top right box here. If your Tweet feed gets as busy as mine does, it will help you separate the wheat from the chaff.
Another leading character in Trump's churning political melodrama, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is waiting for his fate to be decided.
Speculation has been rife all week that he will be fired or resign in a meeting with the President on Thursday -- but Trump said at his news conference he was thinking of postponing their chat so he could concentrate on the Kavanaugh hearing.
Also covering that as well (my schedule today has been cleared).
Tomorrow night, Lupe Valdez and Greg Abbott debate, and
Come hang out.
Tuesday, September 25, 2018
Proposition B: Houston firefighters pay parity
The last time I blogged about this topic, over a year ago, it became the fifteenth-highest clicked post in the sixteen-year history of Brains. I'm tempted to excerpt myself, since I said it all so well there, but I'll leave readers the choice of re-reading me.
Little has changed in the past fourteen months. The petition's signatures to get on the November ballot were finally approved, after some typical slow-walking through City Secretary Anna Russell's office; Sylvester Turner and the Democrats on City Council -- a majority -- are still opposed and speaking ominously about layoffs of police and firefighters if it passes; and the proposition remains likely to sail through in resounding fashion, leaving Mayor Turner and Council with their bluff called.
Sunday before last, Turner wrote his op-ed in the Chron against it ...
... and so did Patrick 'Marty' Lancton of the HPFFA, obviously in favor.
Turner blames the city's revenue cap, the previous (Annise Parker) administration for leaving him this landmine, and of course, the firefighters themselves for being greedy.
Lancton makes a more compelling case.
HPD has long fought with HFD over trivial matters, like resentment over the fact that firefighters can sleep on the job, while police officers get fired for doing so. Terminations of cops are, of course, at the heart of the police officers' objections to the firefighters' pay parity proposal.
The city of Houston has acted, and has continued to act, in bad faith throughout this years-long, multiple-administration process. And they're about to get their asses handed to them because of it.
Here's the website supporting Prop. B and here's the one opposing it. If you're truly on the fence, then spend some time on both. Oh yeah, here's Turner-vanquished Bill King, wringing his hands and clucking his tongue about this sorry state of affairs as he votes for the firefighters. His answer would never be to raise any taxes, of that you can be certain. He's the same old monkeywrench in the gears he's always been.
I had the following Twitter exchange with former Mayor Parker in August; it encapsulates our respective thinking-- along with local establishment lackey Erik Vidor's, who chimed in to support Parker -- perfectly. (The deleted Tweet Parker was responding to contained some animus from a firefighter about the tone of of previous negotiations. Click to open the thread for all responses.)
Mayor Turner and the Democrats on Council have everything at stake here, because they are too frightened to raise revenues, either by establishing a vote to eliminate the revenue cap or by instituting an increase in sanitation or water fees. They cannot make the arguments in favor of paying for a fair salary increase for firefighters, so they recycle the same scare tactics used in the police pension negotiations. Nothing but Republican-styled fear-mongering: layoffs, services cut, etc. Neither their enemies nor their allies are buying their cowardly bullshit a second time.
Some of them will be turned out of office in 2019 because of it. And they deserve to be.
Perhaps then we can elect some Democrats who remember how to govern like Democrats, and not like Republicans. Perhaps we'll even elect a progressive independent or two.
Vote for the firefighters and let the neoliberals fend for themselves.
Little has changed in the past fourteen months. The petition's signatures to get on the November ballot were finally approved, after some typical slow-walking through City Secretary Anna Russell's office; Sylvester Turner and the Democrats on City Council -- a majority -- are still opposed and speaking ominously about layoffs of police and firefighters if it passes; and the proposition remains likely to sail through in resounding fashion, leaving Mayor Turner and Council with their bluff called.
Sunday before last, Turner wrote his op-ed in the Chron against it ...
Please read my op-ed in today’s newspaper. I support firefighters, but Prop. B is bad.— Sylvester Turner (@SylvesterTurner) September 16, 2018
I have negotiated successfully with city workers and police officers on pensions & pay raises. I know the city cannot afford a 25 percent raise for any employee group. https://t.co/vSRuXmAFFp
... and so did Patrick 'Marty' Lancton of the HPFFA, obviously in favor.
Turner blames the city's revenue cap, the previous (Annise Parker) administration for leaving him this landmine, and of course, the firefighters themselves for being greedy.
Lancton makes a more compelling case.
For Houston firefighters, the last decade has been difficult as we watched our pay dramatically erode. As the city of Houston found ways to increase pay for police officers by 30 percent since 2011, our pay rose by only three percent in that time. One Houston firefighter was even featured on a poster for federally supported Section 8 housing.
By voting “yes” for Proposition B in the November election, voters can help take the politics out of public safety in Houston. Firefighters have asked the city for competitive pay and better working conditions for several years. This followed our giving the city major concessions after the economy collapsed in 2008. City promises of better pay when the economy improved were not kept.
Instead, city politicians refuse to equally value the service and sacrifices of Houston first responders. Now, too many Houston-trained firefighters are leaving for other departments around the nation, including suburban departments that pay almost twice the starting salary as Houston.
Some suggest fire and police jobs are different and should not be linked by pay. In fact, fire and police are paid equally on a rank-by-rank basis throughout the United States — including in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Dallas. ... [I]n Houston, the pay of City Council members is linked with that of local judges. What nobody mentions locally anymore is that police and firefighters had pay parity for many years here — at the request of police.
HPD has long fought with HFD over trivial matters, like resentment over the fact that firefighters can sleep on the job, while police officers get fired for doing so. Terminations of cops are, of course, at the heart of the police officers' objections to the firefighters' pay parity proposal.
In June, a scientific survey was taken of Houston residents. More than 75 percent of the surveyed citizens supported compensating our fire and police professionals equally. They recognized that the requirements and risks of the two jobs are similar, and they viewed the issue as urgent. The same was true of the 60,000 Houston voters that signed petitions — in record time, just over a week — to put the pay raise on the ballot.
If the city had certified the signatures on time, in accordance with the law, this election would have been held last year. Instead, some city politicians chose to punish firefighters for seeking voter help. It actually took an order from a state district judge to compel the city to obey the law and certify the petitions and hold the election.
The city of Houston has acted, and has continued to act, in bad faith throughout this years-long, multiple-administration process. And they're about to get their asses handed to them because of it.
Here's the website supporting Prop. B and here's the one opposing it. If you're truly on the fence, then spend some time on both. Oh yeah, here's Turner-vanquished Bill King, wringing his hands and clucking his tongue about this sorry state of affairs as he votes for the firefighters. His answer would never be to raise any taxes, of that you can be certain. He's the same old monkeywrench in the gears he's always been.
I had the following Twitter exchange with former Mayor Parker in August; it encapsulates our respective thinking-- along with local establishment lackey Erik Vidor's, who chimed in to support Parker -- perfectly. (The deleted Tweet Parker was responding to contained some animus from a firefighter about the tone of of previous negotiations. Click to open the thread for all responses.)
I’m fascinated by this trope that if management bargains hard at the table with labor you must hate them. No. It’s business. You want things—I want things. None of the other union bargaining teams I faced ever took it personally. https://t.co/u0QRgdxfOg— Annise Parker (@AnniseParker) August 10, 2018
Mayor Turner and the Democrats on Council have everything at stake here, because they are too frightened to raise revenues, either by establishing a vote to eliminate the revenue cap or by instituting an increase in sanitation or water fees. They cannot make the arguments in favor of paying for a fair salary increase for firefighters, so they recycle the same scare tactics used in the police pension negotiations. Nothing but Republican-styled fear-mongering: layoffs, services cut, etc. Neither their enemies nor their allies are buying their cowardly bullshit a second time.
Some of them will be turned out of office in 2019 because of it. And they deserve to be.
Perhaps then we can elect some Democrats who remember how to govern like Democrats, and not like Republicans. Perhaps we'll even elect a progressive independent or two.
Vote for the firefighters and let the neoliberals fend for themselves.
Monday, September 24, 2018
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.
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 ...
... and one who offered a better question to ponder.
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.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/61499545/1037465628.jpg.0.jpg)
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.
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.
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.
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.
/https://static.texastribune.org/media/images/2017/08/01/APrice-FarmBill-8.jpg)
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, September 23, 2018
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 ...
Saturday, September 22, 2018
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)