On last night’s edition of YNN Austin’s Capital Tonight, I was asked about the dueling press conferences earlier this week on Medicaid expansion. Here’s what I said:
Here’s Senator Cornyn’s original opinion piece to which I was reacting.
You can watch the entire show online here, and you can watch Capital Tonight live, 5 nights a week on YNN in Austin, at 7 pm.
Governor Rick Perry has been talking a lot about CPRIT – the embattled Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas – this week. Already under criminal investigation, the agency is under fire for alleged improprieties regarding its process for granting money to entities for cancer research.
Except now, most of Governor Perry’s emphasis on this agency seems to surround commercialization of cancer treatments. Not funding research to cure or prevent cancer, mind you, but instead how to create wealth from this disease.
I have not recently been shy about what I think about this agency’s performance so far, and the Governor’s focus on making money off cancer research only makes a bad situation worse.
Here’s what I said about it last night on YNN’s Capital Tonight:
If the emphasis of the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas is suddenly going to be commercialization, and not curing and preventing this disease, then I would gently suggest that they need to change the name of the agency.
I would further suggest that you – the voters of Texas – were sold a bill of goods, because here’s the language on your ballot you were asked to vote on:
The constitutional amendment requiring the creation of the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas and authorizing the issuance of up to $3 billion in bonds payable from the general revenues of the state for research in Texas to find the causes of and cures for cancer. [emphasis added]
Nowhere in the ballot language, or in the legislative debate prior to legislators voting to put this before voters, was there mention of “…so that private companies can get their stuff funded with taxpayer money, and get richer than God off the scourge of cancer.”
If CPRIT is to be continued, it should do everything it can to facilitate prevention and cures. If instead the emphasis will be on how best to get rich using taxpayer-funded sweetheart deals, the State of Texas should get out of the cancer business. I would also suggest that the emphasis doesn’t even need to be on commercialization, because if any of CPRIT’s grants actually does result in research which finds a cure for cancer, trust me: everybody involved will make a ton of money.
You can watch the entire episode of Capital Tonight here, which includes an interview with Rick Perry, and comments by others on the CPRIT funding issue.
Update: here’s Eileen Smith’s take and here’s Juanita Jean’s take
I’ve always been proud of my participation in YNN’s Capital Tonight show, and happy that I’ve been a part of it since the very first episode two years ago. The weekly show has been Austin TV’s biggest commitment to political and public policy coverage since its inception.
Now I’m even more proud that I’m part of it, because starting this week with the beginning of the legislative session, Capital Tonight airs 5 nights a week – YNN’s already-big commitment is now even bigger. I’m guessing my schedule will be flexible, but I expect to be on two or three episodes per week.
Capital Tonight has aways been available to Time-Warner Cable subscribers in Austin and across Texas, but here’s the deal: for now, the pay wall for the show on YNN’s website has been lifted, and you can watch to your heart’s content.
Click on the YNN icon in the menu bar at the top of this page to watch segments from last night’s show. Try us out! If you, like me, have lamented the reduction in political and policy news coverage among Texas media, please reward YNN for their commitment by giving us a try.
If you’re already on Time-Warner cable, please check us out on TV. I’ll be on tonight’s episode, and the show airs live from 7-7:30 on YNN in Austin, and airs at 10 pm every weeknight on the Texas Channel elsewhere in the state.
My friend Tyrus Fain passed away today. He leaves behind the lovely Kate Fain, some grown up kids, and about thirty bazillion friends.
When I first met Ty he was a political consultant. Later when he moved to the Big Bend, he was the President of the Rio Grande Institute, doing his part to protect that great river. I first met him through then-Texas Land Commissioner Garry Mauro in 1991. Some of his other friends go back years further than that, perhaps all the way back to one of several Kennedy campaigns for President and/or US Senate, or even before.
I wouldn’t even know how or where to begin to describe Ty in a way that would do him justice. That’s why this is going to be a different kind of tribute, because Ty Fain was a different kind of man. So here’s the deal: there are so many stories about Ty Fain’s never-ending efforts to have fun, screw with Republicans, save the Rio Grande River, or otherwise be notable in some way, that no one person could know them all, much less begin to tell them. So I want to tell a couple of stories about Ty, but I want this tribute to be audience participation; those of you who knew Ty, please please PLEASE share your stories with the rest of the class, in the comments section. While it might not be particularly challenging to tell a great story about Ty, you might find it more challenging to think of one which can be told in mixed company. I know you’ll do your best.
Here are mine:
Ty loved to mess with Republicans. For some reason, he particularly loved screwing with Bush 41. George H.W. Bush was able to claim Texas residency in the 80′s only because he’d registered to vote using the address of a hotel room in Houston. So in 1988, in efforts to demonstrate to Ty’s fellow Texans the extent to which Bush wasn’t much of one, Ty and some friends rented that very hotel room in Houston, put out a bunch of bologna sandwiches, added a cardboard cut-out of Bush, invited the media, and had themselves a party. It got national news.
Ty was also completely absent-minded. He often told the story of how, when he was an advance man for Bobby Kennedy’s presidential campaign, he was advancing the next scheduled campaign stop after the one at which Kennedy was tragically killed. Ty was at that next event site preparing when they called to tell him the news. Ty was shell-shocked when he heard, and he jumped in his rental car, drove back to his hotel, packed his bag, took a cab to the airport, and returned to Washington.
Ty said it was a full six months later when one night, he bolted up out of a dead sleep in bed, suddenly remembering that he’d left that rental car, keys still in the ignition and the engine running, in front of his hotel somewhere in California. He called the rental car company, who upon hearing from him responded, “oh yes, Mr. Fain – we know all about you.” He claims to have been banned for life from renting from that company again.
Ty always offered a chilled shot of Patron tequila and great political war stories to anybody who came to visit he and Kate at their house in Marathon, Texas. Over the years I drank a lot of his liquor and listened to a lot of his stories. And I grew to love him and Kate (and also the tequila, come to think of it) more and more as time went by. I’m very sad that there will be no more visits with Ty.
The professional river guides on the Rio Grande always said that Ty Fain had a death wish. They said they often saw him do things in his kayak on that river that even they would never do. But he always emerged from the rapids on the other end of the run without a scratch. I imagine that Ty’s back floating on the river now, doing what he loved to do, where he loved to do it, pretty smugly happy with himself for leaving it all out on the field. He should be – he did.
Add your Ty Fain stories in the comments section so we can all enjoy ‘em, and so we can continue enjoying him. Meanwhile, I think it’s high time I had a chilled Patron while I fondly remember my old friend. Rest in peace, old scoundrel. You’ll never be forgotten.
Update: apparently, settings in the comments section automatically correct “Ty” to “Thank you.” Despite the fact that is seems entirely appropriate, I hope I have changed the settings to disable this temporarily. I fear that the correction is distracting to the central message. Carry on.
Editor’s Note: I happily – even giddily – stand by what I wrote the other day about Texas Democrats needing to do better. After all, a political party barely scraping past 40% in statewide results must either do better, or admit the votes aren’t there. Since I refuse to concede the latter, I focus on the former. At the same time, there have been flashes of brilliance in district races all over Texas for years, several of them this year. That’s why I asked Jeff Rotkoff, who seems never to be far away from those flashes when they happen, to go through the specifics of how Pete Gallego walloped an incumbent member of Congress – a fresh case study in turning things around. Jeff was key to the team that turned it around for Gallego in the primary, and the team that won the election Tuesday night. His is only the second guest piece I’ve ever solicited for these pages, for good reason – this stuff is important. If you want Texas Democrats to do better than 40-something-percent moving forward, Jeff’s take-aways are important.
by Jeff Rotkoff
Speak for yourself, Cook!
It would be one thing if electoral results like these had been engineered by a Democratic Party so brilliant that they successfully attracted the coalition of women, minorities, working families, and disaffected Anglos with whom they won nationally last night. – Harold Cook, Letters From Texas
There I was, minding my own business, trying to figure out why @GovernorPerry took so long to block me on Twitter, when a tweet from San Antonio Express-News writer Nolan Hicks had to harsh my vibe:
Never mind the pesky fact that California Republicans suffered net losses, and Texas Democrats gained ground on election night! Let’s pretend getting your ass handed to you up and down the ballot compares to coming up short in like four races! They’re practically the same thing, right?
And now there’s this. Famed Texas letter writer Harold Cook published a piece on his blog making the argument that Democrats didn’t so much earn voters’ support in 2012, as the Republicans repelled them like a DEA agent at Phish concert in Denver.
Listen, y’all. I just can’t take it any more. So, I think I’ll do what I do best: I’ll pick a fight.
First, let me start with a caveat. The 2010 general election sucked. Two years ago was my third election cycle at the Texas HDCC, and on one night, we saw 4 years of gains totally wiped out, and more. Virtually every single race I worked on in 2010 was a loss, and it hurt. But, dear readers, it was only one cycle. Past may be prologue, but history goes back to before 2010.
Jeff Rotkoff: obvious fight-picker
I got my start as a campaign staffer working for then-Congressman Chet Edwards. It was a win mostly driven by the fact that Chet was a helluva incumbent and his opponent was a doofus who wanted to abolish the Department of Education. And in 2004, we kicked the crap out of Arlene Wholgemuth. I’d like to say our great field program drove the win, but the reality is that Arlene’s record of making it harder for sick kids to get health insurance, and her support of outlawing abortion – even in cases of rape and incest – probably had more to do with our win in a district drawn by Tom DeLay and Karl Rove.
In 2006 and 2008 I was proud to be a part of some really outstanding campaigns for the state House, helping to elect legislators like Chris Turner, Joe Moody, Carol Kent, Robert Miklos and plenty more. And Texas Democrats won a bunch of other impressive races before 2010. Wendy Davis was elected to the Senate. We defeated Henry Bonilla and Tom De-frickin-Lay for goodness sake.
Folks, it is time to get over our 2010 PTSD and admit it: Texas Democrats know how to win. We don’t always do so. Sometimes it’s the money that holds us back. Sometimes it’s the candidate. And sometimes it’s a race-fueled rage sweeping the country. But sometimes, hell, lots of times, we’ve figured out just what the heck it is we’re doing.
In 2012, I’m proud to have been involved in a couple of big projects that did exactly what Harold Cook says we probably didn’t: engineer a strategy to attract a coalition of women, minorities and working families. One key win – Pete Gallego’s race for Congress – wasn’t the state’s only big Democratic victory (for example, I take 0.0% of the credit for Wendy Davis’s outstanding reelection effort). But here’s a little about what Pete Gallego accomplished:
The formula was simple: the right message + innovative targeting + good old-fashioned field operation = a Gallego win.
The truth of the matter is that a lot of people never really gave ol’ Pete much of a chance. Confession time: I expressed serious reservations when he first asked me my opinion on running for CD 23. But I was wrong. Pete ran a campaign that was modern and innovative, but simultaneously refreshingly simple and traditional.
Pete damn near lost the primary runoff to Ciro Rodriguez. We came into it trailing 55-45, lost the endorsement of the 3rd candidate, and our own IDs reflected that 55-45 split. But then we did a few key things, and reinvented the race.
First, we ditched the message recommended by a now out-of-business pollster, that Pete should focus on his background as a prosecutor and run as Mr. Law and Order. Instead, we started talking about the issues that Latino Democrats in Bexar County, South Texas, and El Paso really care about: protecting Social Security and Medicare for our seniors, and providing educational opportunities for our kids.
Second – it wasn’t quite Project Narwhal – but working with the teams at AMM Political, GQR Research, and the Pivot Group we implemented a truly innovate candidate support model, and worked off the best field and mail targeting I’ve ever seen.
And you know what? It turns out that when you to talk to the right voters with the right message, you can win an election nobody thinks you will.
That same mantra served Pete well in the general election: find the right voters and talk to them about the issues that make a difference in their lives.
In the general election, that meant introducing Pete to the electorate by telling his family’s story of middle class struggle, and connecting to the economic concerns of voters in 2012. Research showed that Latino voters in Bexar County particularly – who did not start off with strongly held opinions on Gallego – were concerned not just about making it to the middle class, but staying there once they arrived. Sharing Pete’s personal story – in English and in Spanish – showed voters he shared their priorities and their values.
Pete Gallego: he’s going to Congress, and you’re not
Next, the campaign did something our opponent never saw coming: we hit him from the right, highlighting his votes against combat pay raises for American soldiers. In a district with four military bases nearby, the ads struck a powerful chord.
Gallego closed out the campaign with another ad that didn’t play to type. It was a one-two punch that hit the Republican for opposing the DREAM Act , but voting to weaken border security. And it worked because voters in South Texas get that safe communities and a pathway to citizenship aren’t mutually exclusive.
On top of it all was a kick-ass field effort, run by hard working staffers who will never get enough credit (Michael! Crystal! Eli! Jenn!), and an outstanding manager, finance staff, and press team. Using models to predict voters’ willingness to listen to what we had to say, the campaign kept it simple: the right message to the right voters led to a pretty damn good election night.
Seems like a pretty good formula. And the great thing is, I’m not convinced it takes 3 million dollars in Super PAC money to execute (although that sure helped Pete). If I were running for County Commissioner in a 46% Democratic district somewhere in Texas, I think I’d have a decent shot to win using these same principles. I’d get on the Texas VAN – one of the best statewide Democratic voter files in the country – and use model scores to figure out which voters will never give a crap about what I had to say. Then I’d never ever talk to them. But I’d also ditch the money down-ballot candidates usually waste on nail files and balloons for the kids, and instead invest wisely in a little door-to-door program, and maybe a couple pieces of mail, talking to voters about the things they actually care about. Protecting the middle class…economic security…our children’s educations. That’s how Texas Democrats can turn 46% losses into 51% wins.
There is hope. We know how to win. We’ve done it before, and we can do it again.
[Here's more about Jeff Rotkoff]
As a service to you, the crap-reading public, I herein present the official 2012 Letters From Texas Guide to Watching Presidential Returns Come In, AKA the election night drinking game.
So without further adieu, here’s the deal: there are only a few battleground states left: Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin, Virginia, New Hampshire, Iowa, Colorado, Nevada, and arguably, North Carolina. So they’re the states to watch.
They’ll be drinking too.
Assuming you’ve already voted by the time you get off work, congratulate yourself: have a drink. And when you get comfy in front of your TV, if you’re in Austin tune into YNN, where our Capital Tonight ongoing election night coverage will begin at 7 pm. The regular crowd – Paul Brown, Ted Delisi, Harvey Kronberg, and me – will be joined by the lovely and talented Scott Braddock. Pour a bonus drink for that too.
By 6:30 pm central time (ALL times are central herein) the polls will have closed in 9 states. Virginia closes at 6, and if the nets call it for Obama, consider it very good news: the state is tied in polling. Have a drink. If it goes for Romney, don’t sweat it. Ain’t no big thang.
North Carolina’s polls close at 6:30, and if they call it for Obama, have two drinks because it’s going to be an early night and Obama will win – the state leans heavily for Romney, and if Obama takes it – big trouble for Republican moose and squirrel.
Ohio also closes at 6:30, but I suspect returns won’t start coming in for a while (like, maybe December), nor do I think the exit polling will be very clear. But If Obama wins Ohio, then all he lacks is Florida, or Virginia plus Wisconsin, to win the election. Have a drink.
By 7:00 pm the polls in another 16 states will close, among them the aforementioned Florida, plus New Hampshire. Also closing at 7 is Massachusetts, so it’ll be time to start looking to see how Elizabeth Warren is faring in early returns. If she jumps out ahead, you know what to do: have a drink.
If the nets call Florida (which is tied/leaning Romney) for Obama, drink heavily, because Florida plus Ohio, or North Carolina, or Virginia, and Obama wins the election. It’s almost impossible for Romney to win without Florida, or Ohio. Drink up.
By 8:00 pm the polls in another 14 states close, most notably Wisconsin, Colorado, and oh yeah Texas (this is actually a dirty trick – only El Paso closes at 8, but they get grumpy when we forget). Colorado is tied up, so if Obama takes it, drink. If Obama wins Wisconsin, and has already won Florida, drink heavily – he just won the election. If Obama loses Florida, but wins Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin, drink heavily – he just won the election that way instead.
By now, the only way you’re still playing this game is if Obama has lost Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina. If that happens, start drinking heavily in the other “oh crap” direction, and instead look for election results in Virginia, Wisconsin, and Colorado. If he wins all of those, plus one of Iowa, Nevada, or New Hampshire – he wins the election anyway, without winning Florida, Ohio, or North Carolina. DRINK.
Now the obvvi[ous prob;lem here is that by now yourreee really ddrunk. But that’s nooot reallly my probren, iz itt?
Let’s back up and look at this another way: If you make the assumption that Romney will win North Carolina, and that Obama will win Ohio (which are two assumptions I am fairly comfortable making), here are the clearest paths to victory for each candidate:
Obama to win: must only win Florida. If he doesn’t win Florida, he can win Virginia and Wisconsin. Or he can win Wisconsin and Colorado. Or he can win Colorado and Iowa. Each is a winning combination.
Romney to win: must also win Florida, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, and Iowa. There are other winning combinations for him, but they are completely tortured.
See how difficult the electoral map is looking for the Mittster? Drink heavily.
Is this helpful? Good - Buy me a drink.
Tonight is Barack Obama’s big chance.
Two weeks ago, Mitt Romney was able to reverse much of weeks, if not months, of a Bataan death march of a campaign because of the President’s lackluster debate performance. It showed in a reversal of the national polls, most of which showed Romney in the lead after 
the first debate, and in key state polls which showed at least a bump for the Massachusetts Governor. There’s little doubt that the first debate, for the first time in months, made Mitt Romney at contender.
Last week, Vice President Biden stopped the bleeding, in his own debate performance against Paul Ryan. Biden didn’t hit a home run, but he got a solid base hit and fired up the team. (again with the sports analogies)
But ultimately, incumbent Presidents have to make a case for themselves to win re-election. It helps when a former President like Bill Clinton makes a strong case for Obama, as Clinton did at the Democrats’ national convention. It helps when Joe Biden makes a strong case for Obama, as he did last week. Now it’s time for the President to make a strong case for himself.
If the President can do it tonight, he’ll be back in a commanding position in the election. And if he can’t, we’ll have a real race on our hands. No pressure there, huh?
Complicating Obama’s job is the format. Town hall meetings mean the candidates are talking to real live undecided voters, in person. In order to connect with the voters across the country who count the most – undecided voters in the swing states – Obama must first connect with the undecided voter in the room tonight asking the question. He can’t just score points in skirmishes with his opponent, or moderator Candy Crowley.
Crowley herself is another factor. Arguably, she’ll be the moderator this election most inclined toward sharp challenges to a questionable claim either candidate makes. This is certainly something that Mr. Romney will have to take into account, since Crowley is unlikely to let slide Romney’s ever-shifting policy positions. But Crowley is certain not to fail to take the President to the woodshed any time she thinks he’s weaseling on.
This is the second time the two candidates have met, and second debates are always about course corrections for the loser of the first debate. It is a certainty that we will see a very different Barack Obama tonight than we saw two weeks ago. The real question is, will the Obama we see tonight perform more effectively than the one we saw two weeks ago? My guess is that he’ll get his groove back tonight, if only because he’s shown himself to be at his best when his back is against the wall.
Here’s what I said about it on Fox News in Austin last night. Frequent Republican partner-in-crime Ted Delisi and I will be on the pre-game show, and post-game analysis, on YNN Austin this evening, beginning at 7:45 Central.
Earlier this week, Texas Governor Rick Perry participated in a conference call with evangelical Christians, in which he said that the separation of church and state was is devil’s work.
Perry didn’t mention the probability that separation of church and state is more likely the work of James Madison and the Federalist Papers, but I’m sure he just forgot about that teeny weeny detail.
Did Perry say it because he’s trying to advance the principles of Christianity? Of course not. He said it for partisan purposes – trying to help drag Mitt Romney over the finish line. This marks the bazillionth time Perry and other Republicans have used God as a political prop.
Here’s what I said about it on YNN’s “Capital Tonight,” which you can view in its entirety this Sunday morning at 11 am, on YNN in Austin or on the Texas Channel in other Texas media markets:
The benchmark in responsible journalism for those offering commentary aught to be that those whom journalists call upon should be interesting, thought-provoking, and have an outstanding depth of understanding for the topic discussed. If they’re not all that, journalists should not call on them.
All too often these days, when reporters call on conservatives to comment on this election, the direction of the country, or the President’s leadership, it turns out to merely be an opportunity for those people to call President Obama a socialist.
This is usually the point at which I begin hollering and throwing stuff at my TV.
But interestingly, often as not, I don’t holler at the interviewee, because they’re just doing what hyper-partisans do – call names. They’re also not the ones in control of whether they’re polluting my television or newspaper – the reporters are. So I holler at the journalist, because I believe that there are really only two journalistically-valid responses for the oft-leveled “Obama is a socialist” charge: to immediately terminate the interview and direct the show’s producer to lose that guy’s phone number and find a real guest; or to immediately demand of the interviewee their specific definition of “socialism” and how that definition fits the charge that the President is one. Most journalists exercise neither option. They actually treat this intellectual mental illness as if it is somewhat normal behavior.
As a result of this journalistic malfeasance, conservative thought-leaders feel free to level the charge on an hourly basis, and conservative thought-puppets repeat it on a constant one.
But never fear: for the journalists failing to do their jobs, for conservatives failing to offer actual ideas, and for thought-puppets failing to even contemplate diverting from what they are told to parrot, Letters From Texas Worldwide Headquarters to the rescue. Here’s why those who repeat the charge have nothing valid to share, and upon saying it should give up the privilege of ever being invited to participate in political discourse in any legitimate public forum for any reason, ever again: Obama is simply not a socialist. Or, if he is, he’s the absolute worst socialist in the history of socialism.
Here’s how Merriam-Webster defines socialism:
1. any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2. a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
3. a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Let’s take each definition one-by-one.
First, on controlling the means of production: has the President indicated that any sort of hallmark of his administration highlights either worker or government control of the means of production? No, he has not. Not even close.
But what of conservative squaking about so-called “Obamacare” constituting the socialized government take-over of health care? Well, sad to tell you – it is a out-and-out lie. When President Obama rejected the public option and instead opted for an individual mandate – just as then-Governor Romney did in Massachusetts – Obama, in effect, delivered millions and millions of new customers to commercial insurance companies. That isn’t socialism. It’s the opposite of socialism.
And what of conservative gnashing of teeth over government bailouts to save the faltering economy at the end of the Bush administration? It seems to me that a socialist President worth the label, after having invested in banks and auto manufacturers and such, would want to retain that ownership share for the government – in other words, control the means of production. But instead, the government has been selling off its shares of all of the above just as fast as the markets will tolerate it. This specific objective of the government relinquishing control over the means of production is about as un-socialist as it gets.
Second, on creating a system in which there is no private property: please. Anybody who sees any sign of that from the Obama administration has more issues than can be addressed here. You need go no further than recent stock market reports which show the market soaring to know that nobody on Wall Street, which is the greatest institution of capitalism on earth, is worried about President Obama taking away their property. And incidentally, “capitalism” is the antonym of “socialism,” and when Wall Street – the center of the capitalist universe – is posting multi-year record highs, it’s pretty safe to assume that the rich folks aren’t busy jumping from their balconies in abject terror that the White House might away their stuff. Those high stock prices constitute yet another example of why, if Obama is a socialist, he’s a damn poor one.
And third, a transitional step between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done: if whatever stage we are in as a nation is a transition away from capitalism and toward communism, where is the evidence of that? The growing income gap between the rich and the poor is, if anything, evidence to the contrary. And what greater evidence of any such transitional step has the Obama administration produced, than any other administration before it? If the guideposts of that are policies which increase opportunity for those in poverty to move up – you caught us, we’re guilty. But if you claim that those policies are at the expense of wealthy Americans, you can just refer back to those multi-year record highs on Wall Street we just discussed. Those who own most of the stuff around here seem like they couldn’t be tickled pinker with the way things are going, to watch Wall Street.
Those definitions aside…perhaps those hyper-partisan conservatives who call Obama a socialist are more generally just PO’ed because of Obama’s attempts to narrow the opportunity gap in America. And if that’s what they’re complaining about, they’ll have a hard time explaining why they would advocate against greater opportunity for those who didn’t previously have much of it.
But they’d also have a hard time explaining how that is different from some of their own Republican Presidents’ attempts to narrow gaps in opportunity and lack of protection for Americans, poor or otherwise. Like when Ronald Reagan’s federal government expanded instead of shrank. Or when Reagan bailed out Social Security in 1983. Or when George H.W. Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act. Or when Richard Nixon proposed the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970. Or when George W. Bush signed the re-authorization of the Voting Rights Act in 2006.
It is so clear that Barack Obama isn’t a socialist that I can’t believe people have to write pieces like this explaining why. What is less clear is why journalists continue to allow hyper-partisans to pollute the grown-ups’ news by childishly claiming it.
Stop me if you’ve heard this one.
What if a Republican nominee who was personally very wealthy refused to publicly release his income tax returns, so that voters could know where the money came from and where it went? And what if despite months of Democrats’ howls and journalists’ pleas, he still steadfastly declined to release them?
Let’s continue the scenario, just for grins: what if, by a couple of weeks out from the November election, polling showed that Republican nominee had a ten point lead over his Democratic opponent. Except, a few days out from the election, what if a reporter slipped past the candidate’s handlers and asked him some inconvenient questions about those tax returns? And what if, in a fit of unscripted honesty, this rich candidate blurted out that, despite enormous personal wealth, he didn’t have to pay any – yes ANY – taxes for one of the years in question?
And what if, as a result of that and other gaffes, that Republican blew his whole lead, and the Democrat won the race in a real squeaker of an election?
We don’t have to wonder what if, because it happened. I’m not talking about 2012′s Mitt Romney. I’m describing Texas Gubernatorial candidate Clayton Williams in 1990, whose tax return SNAFUs and other gaffes propelled his opponent Ann Richards into the Texas Governor’s mansion.
There are probably more than a few Republican partisans who aren’t sleeping easy, while they wonder why it’s so important to Romney to keep his tax returns from going public. As I and others have said before, if it was easy to do, he would have already done it. The political cost of him not doing so has already been quantified – a CNN poll showed that he gained about six points worth of negatives, just from July to August. Assuming Romney is not being irrational, it’s fair to assume that he’s concluded that the political cost of him releasing the returns is greater than that. Harry Reid and others are to be forgiven if they smell a rat.
The Texas oilman, Clayton Williams, can probably relate to Romney’s frustration. And in fact, Mr. Williams indeed expressed a bit of frustration of his own the other day, when he shelled out the money to buy a couple of billboards in Midland which said “Obama can kiss my rig.” Williams said he’d “cleaned up my act” a bit from his original preferred message, undoubtedly to protect the delicate sensibilities of the good people of Midland. Because, after all, Midlanders are well-known for their delicate sensibilities.
Perhaps Mr. Williams should warn Mitt Romney about the political cost of this income tax thing. And perhaps he intends to: Romney will reportedly be in Midland next Tuesday raising lots of money. It may be worse than Romney thinks – politics aside, Clayton Williams is a lot more likable than Mitt Romney, and to my knowledge has never, ever, even so much as thought about strapping a dog to the roof of his car.
To readers outside of Texas, I apologize in advance. But Texas politicos felt a great disturbance in the force Friday night, as if a thousand county chairs were crying out as one, when the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the legislative and Congressional redistricting maps, and appeared to have taken jurisdiction over everything. Here’s the one-page order.
I haven’t talked to a single redistricting lawyer tonight – they’re all busy conferring with each other, no doubt. But as a guy who has been through redistricting so many times that I can’t think about it very long without being ashamed of myself for still being in this business, here are my initial thoughts on what this means:
– First, we don’t really know what this means. But from Democrats’ perspective, it can’t exactly be great news.
– Second, If somebody tonight is explaining to you what it means, that’s probably because he’s a consultant, you’re paying him, and as a result he feels a duty to sound smart. Nobody knows what it means. But keep this in mind: it takes fewer Supreme Court Justices to accept a case than it does to issue a majority ruling on a case, so after it’s all said and done, we may end up with the exact same maps the Federal Court in San Antonio ordered. Or, we may not. It may be a sign that Justice Scalia has seen this as his big opportunity to do away with Sec. 5 of the Voting Rights Act, or it may be a hiccup in which Justices merely want to know more.
– at this point, there is no way to tell what the filing deadline is, whether current filings mean anything, when the primary election might be held, or when a primary run-off might occur. And, of course, we don’t know what the maps will look like, although they could look exactly like the maps we thought folks would be running under yesterday.
– I do think, given that the oral arguments for this case aren’t until January 9, that it is extremely likely that Texas could ultimately have a split primary election next year, with the Presidential primaries on one date, and everything else on a subsequent date. This also means that everybody’s primary election turn-out models could be moot. We spent all year assuming we’d have the typical Presidential year boost in turnout, and may end up with city council run-off-style low turnout, given the absence of a Presidential primary, or even high profile statewide races on the same ballot.
Most of all, however, I think that politicos of both Parties and all ilk should follow this one simple instruction: chill out. Without a doubt, lawyers and judges will soon be holding telephonic hearings, during which clarifications will be given, guidance be shared, and more will be revealed. Until then, there is simply nothing anyone can do besides enjoy their weekend.
As I write this, the Federal 3-judge panel in San Antonio has just released a preliminary interim Congressional map, and has just released it’s final ordered interim maps for the state House and Senate.
Republican reaction to the maps released so far has been scathing and instant. They are shocked – SHOCKED – that “activist federal judges” would go so far.
It’s both amusing and sad to watch the Republican gnashing of teeth in reaction to the court’s maps. The Voting Rights Act to which Texas must adhere should be no surprise – it was enacted in the 1960′s. The system of judicial review is not new either. What seems to be new is the Republican arrogance that they can draw anything they want, mowing down any group of voters who oppose them, and expect rubber stamps from the folks charged with reviewing the maps for legality.
The judicial panel, made up of two Republicans and one Democrat, didn’t step in to help Democrats, or hurt Republicans. Neither did the Republican Federal panel in the D.C. circuit which precipitated the San Antonio panel drawing the interim maps. The federal courts stepped in to enforce the Voting Rights Act, to ensure that the rights of minority Texans are protected.
That so many in the Republican political establishment consider that to be terrible news is precisely why so many minority Texans reject Republican candidates for office.
If the Texas Republicans in charge didn’t work so hard full-time to alienate minority Texans, they would have nothing to fear in asking minority Texans for their votes come election time. Their preferred option, however, is to divide those minority voters and make their opinions meaningless. Thankfully, the court has reminded us this week that it is illegal.
Minorities are almost single-handedly responsible for Texas’ population growth. It’s time for Republicans to man-up and recognize their moral obligation to be responsive to the concerns of these dynamic and fast-growing communities.
Until they do, they will continue to be hammered at the polls by the voters whose voices they tried to silence.
Newt Gingrich has repeatedly said during debates that he wants English as the official language of the United States.
I, for one, am deeply insulted at the fundamental insensitivity of this vicious attack…on Rick Perry.
So Rick Perry, pummeled in the polls, most recently because he can’t complete a sentence, is suddenly against career politicians who enrich themselves due to their public service.
 |
| Perry: sumthin’s gotta work |
No, wait – you need to read that more slowly, and think it through: Rick Perry…is against career politicians…who enrich themselves…due to their public service. That’s like Santa Claus being damn tired of all that Christmas stuff.
This would be the same Rick Perry who has lived in public housing for years, who was a man of modest means when he got his first government job back before your punk-ass teenager was born.
He thinks people in Congress work too hard, and wants to give them some time off. He thinks the Federal judges should all go home. Actually, in Scalia’s case, I’ll spot him that one.
But mostly what he thinks is that he’s a desperate man, whom Republican voters have already resoundingly rejected, but who, perhaps not for nothing, has some hope that he’ll get a second chance.
He may well get his chance. The pizza guy is history, and Newt is on minute number 13.5. In Republican primary voters’ never-ending quest to avoid thinking too much about The Commie Health Care Mormon, they’re either about to force themselves to take another last look at The Wackadoodle From Texas, or The Other Crazy Woman Who Isn’t Palin. Or perhaps Huntsman, who is so utterly boring he is nickname-less.
President Obama undoubtedly sleeps just fine at night.
© 2008-2013 Harold Cook. All rights reserved. No content may be reproduced without prior written permission. Views expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of clients, employers, or other sane human beings. This offer is void where prohibited. Substantial penalty for early withdrawal. Political satire contained herein is subject to change without notice. Your mileage may vary. All models are over the age of 18. Keep away from open flames. No animals were harmed in the making of this website. If this website is ingested, do not induce vomiting; if symptoms persist, consult your physician. If content of this website offends you, by all means extract the corncob from your ass and lighten up.
Website designed by Rachaelbutts.com
