Burnt Orange Report

Update on the Pending KBH Announcement

By Byron LaMasters

Earlier today I posted that news had been leaked that KBH will be announcing for Governor next week. A personal source of mine in the media has also confirmed that KBH will be in Austin for a press conference next week most likely related to her 2006 intentions and likely run for governor.

The Dallas Morning News editorial board blog also pegs their "Hutch-O-Meter" as maxed out at a 100% chance that KBH runs for governor. Also on the DMN blog is an email from a reader who claims to have spoken to several Republican judges in Dallas county. The reader claimed that those unnamed judges were "eager" to see KBH at the top of the 2006 ticket. I don't know the validity of the source, but it is not a surprise to me. KBH will likely win Dallas County in 2006 if she is either the Senate or Governor nominee. On the other hand, I doubt that Rick Perry will win Dallas County if he is the Republican nominee for governor next year.

Challenge to Keel and Kinky Thoughts

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Kuff reports that the first person to state their intentino to run against Republican Rep. Todd Baxter here in Austin (who narrowly beat Kelly White last fall) is Austin Attorney Andy Brown.

Andy Brown, an attorney at DLA Piper, announced his candidacy today in the Democratic Primary for State Representative in District 48. Mr. Brown brings effective public service, legislative experience and community volunteer leadership to the race.

"I intend to provide the kind of leadership on health care, public education and ethics that Travis County residents expect. We owe a debt of gratitude to Kelly White and Ann Kitchen for their enormous efforts to provide balanced and effective representation in the Texas House. District 48 deserves a new voice."

Also in the ring for the Democratic primary for that seak is Hugh Brady. From Qurom Report...

Add Hugh Brady's name to the likely contenders in the Democratic primary seeking to challenge Austin Republican state Rep. Todd Baxter. Brady is a former staffer for state Rep. Glenn Maxey. He is an attorney with the Fitzwater Firm and one of his clients is the House Democratic Caucus. Brady is also the editor of Texas House Practice, a guide book to Texas House procedures.

I'm curious as to whether former Rep. Maxey had a hand in getting him to run, being that Maxey is well known as the Lege's only openly gay representative before stepping down after his district changed. Baxter has a big target on his back thanks to LGRL. I look forward to this seat being taken next round, and now if someone would step up to challenge Rep. Keel as well, then there would be a chance to sweep all of Travis County's 6 house seats for Democrats (though Keel's seat is the most Republican to my knowledge).

Oh, and Kuff reports on some thoughts on the effects of Kinky Friedman for Governor. I need some more time before I have any.

Deep Throat Revealed!

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

It's W. Mark Felt. We think. Maybe. For now.

Update: It's him, WaPo and W&B confim it. Read.

Previously.... Most news outlets are putting it somewhere between top news story to something a couple notches down. The main reason being it is Mr. Felt that has said it is him, rather than the Washington Post or Woodward and Berstein. From the MSNBC story..

In 2003, Woodward and Bernstein reached an agreement to keep their Watergate papers at the University of Texas at Austin.

At the time, the pair said documents naming “Deep Throat” would be kept secure at an undisclosed location in Washington until the source’s death.

Bernstein issued a statement neither denying nor confirming Felt's claim. Bernstein stated he and Woodward would be keeping their pledge to reveal the source only once that person dies.

The Washington Post had no immediate comment on the report.

Who was the real Deep Throat was long a source of speculation and rumor.

Among those named over the years as Deep Throat were Assistant Attorney General Henry Peterson, deputy White House counsel Fred Fielding, and even ABC newswoman Diane Sawyer, who then worked in the White House press office. Ron Zeigler, Nixon’s press secretary, White House aide Steven Bull, speechwriters Ray Price and Pat Buchanan, and John Dean, the White House counsel who warned Nixon of “a cancer growing on the presidency,” also were considered candidates.

And some theorized Deep Throat wasn’t a single source at all but a composite figure.

The last time there was a flurry of focus on Felt was in 1999, when a high school senior in New York claimed that Bernstein's son let the secret slip at a summer camp.

At the time, Felt denied he was the man.

“I would have done better,” Felt told The Hartford Courant. “I would have been more effective. Deep Throat didn’t exactly bring the White House crashing down, did he?”

So is it him? Is this the finale, or do we have to wait a few more years once again? Your thoughts?

KBH To Declare for Governor?

By Byron LaMasters

Breaking news via RedState.org. According to their source, KBH will declare for Governor "on or about June 6th". Very interesting if it is true...

Let the bloodbath begin...

Update: Via comments, State Rep. Aaron Pena wrote on his blog that he was hearing similar news last week.

Republican Legislators Unable to Say the "P" Word

By Andrew Dobbs

It seems that since the early 1990s a certain word has left the lips of politicians across this country-- the word "poor". There was a time when poor folks knew that there was a concerted effort to improve their lives. A shifting focus to the middle class has hurt that effort nationally, but thankfully Texas Democrats continue to stand up for the poor (a necessity in one of the poorest states in the entire country). Unfortunately, Republicans have continued to use the poor as their personal ATM-- robbing them of their needed services and their tax dollars in order to pay for their boondoggles for the rich. The DMN spells out a few examples of last minute attacks on the poor.

Lawmakers were able to balance the next two-year state budget with some last-minute maneuvers, but some Democrats complained that poor Texans took a hit in the process.

The Legislature diverted a fund that helped offset electric bills for the poor and opted not to change eligibility checks for the Children's Health Insurance Program to once a year instead of once every six months. The change would have been the best hope for giving health care back to thousands of poor children.

Also, lawmakers once again extended a 1.25 percent tax on telephone service. The tax was to have expired two years ago. (...)

House Speaker Pro Tem Sylvester Turner, D-Houston, was especially upset about losing the 10-percent electricity discount for the poor. About 120,000 of them are served by TXU. Electricity customers in most of the state will continue a tax for the "system benefit fund," but it'll be spent on other programs.

Mr. Turner threatened late Sunday to retaliate by derailing a bill to raise $1.2 billion with higher fees and minor changes to health programs. The measure was crucial to balancing the budget, and Speaker Tom Craddick, R-Midland, rebuffed Mr. Turner's parliamentary maneuver.

The electricity fund also was raided in 2003 to help plug a $10 billion budget shortfall. Lawmakers siphoned enough to reduce the number of eligible households from 750,000 to 350,000, Mr. Turner said.

"Many of them happen to be seniors," he said.

To be eligible, a household's income can't exceed 125 percent of the federal poverty level ­ about $12,000 for a single person, $16,000 for a couple. Through 2007, no one will get a discount.

In CHIP, the state-federal program for youngsters in working-poor households, some experts believe a shift two years ago to eligibility checks every six months contributed more than other cuts to 180,000 children being removed from the rolls. (...)

So 350,000 poor Texans will see an 11% increase in their electric bills, and poor and middle class Texans whose kids depended on CHIP for health care before 2003 who were promised restorations in that session's cuts were disappointed, despite bipartisan efforts to fix to fix the program. Texans who expected a cut in their telephone bill two years ago will have to wait at least two more years to get that relief. Now, whenever Democrats vote for or support a smaller tax cut or a delay of a tax cut than what Republicans want the Republicans call it a "tax increase." Following their own logic, Republicans have supported a tax increase for the last two sessions running.

Poor folks were the punching bag for frustrated Republicans all session. When they needed cash to make up for their proposed (and ultimately, failed) school finance/tax restructuring plan, they raised taxes on poor and middle class Texans. The less you made, the larger the tax increase so the Republican plan would have raised taxes a staggering 5-6%. And poor schools would have seen less money under the "equity" proposals than wealthy schools-- not just in dollars, but in percentage increase. This session could have been a disaster for the poor, but since the Republicans failed miserably in virtually all of their efforts they ended up coming out just beaten and not bludgeoned to death.

The fact of the matter is that the best reason I can find to be a Democrat is that when the cards are down we are for poor folks and the other guys are for rich folks. Being for rich folks means you would rather help out people who don't need any help than help out people who are struggling just to survive. And when you help out poor folks it helps out middle class folks (who are typically one disaster away from abject poverty) and even rich folks (whose prosperity is undermined by the instability a large underclass brings with it). This session proved once and for all that the Democrats are the party of working people and the Republicans the party of the idle rich. Republicans are in trouble now because no one likes a bully and that is exactly what they presented themselves as to the poor here in Texas.

Editorial Boards Across the State Hammer the Lege

By Byron LaMasters

Since I enjoyed adding my snarky asides in compiling the news reports about the end of the "Do Nothing" Texas legislature below, let's take a look at what the newspaper editorial boards had to say:

I'll start with my favorite newspaper in the state, the conservative Dallas Morning News:

Lackluster Finish: Legislature didn't come close on school finance

By now, you probably know that the Texas Legislature wrapped up its 2005 session without finding a solution to the state's school funding crisis. But the reality was that the debate over the school-funding bill was meaningless weeks ago. Neither the House nor the Senate ever came close to putting enough funds into Texas schools. And it's best now that the Texas Supreme Court take over this matter. It's clear the Legislature doesn't want to handle it well.

From the beginning of the session, most of the Republicans who run Austin did not want to raise the taxes necessary to adequately fund schools. They instead took care of their party's base, which doesn't look kindly on any kind of tax hike.

Republicans attended to their base throughout this session. They hupped-to on issues that matter to cultural conservatives, like banning gay marriage. Cultural conservatives and anti-tax folks vote, so party leaders weren't going to disappoint either.

On the harder task of making government work, legislators struggled. Protecting children and the elderly. Managing water resources and combating pollution. Reauthorizing state agencies. Opening government to the public. Overhauling the workers' compensation system. They were all battle zones until the end. The session boasted only a few pieces of major legislation that moved through with some measure of consensus – for example, the state budget and laws governing asbestos suits.

The DMN states the obvious. Republicans are great when they can hyperventilate about taxes, and throw red meat to their base when they are in the minority. When they actually have to govern, Republicans are immediately torn. Do they continue to cater to their base? Or do they actually solve the state's problems? Republicans in the Texas lege clearly took the former (although the budget was a 19% increase from 2003). Most interestingly, the DMN calls for the Texas Supreme Court to take over the matter. Apparently, they feel that the GOP-legislature is so inept and incompetent that the only solution is judicial activism. Wow.

The San Antonio Express-News has similar thoughts:

Editorial: Lawmakers once again let down schoolchildren

Texas lawmakers once again have failed the state's children miserably because they couldn't reach an agreement on overhauling the school finance system.

As legislative leaders declared that efforts to increase public school funding and revamp the system were dead, the blame game was under way in the Capitol at NASCAR speeds.

Regardless of who is to blame, the bottom line is that the Legislature failed in the midst of a crisis.

A district court judge has ruled that the system of public school finance is unconstitutional. The Texas Supreme Court is scheduled to review the case in July.

Many school districts are slashing budgets because they already have reached local property tax caps and state funding is not keeping up with growth and inflation.

After lawmakers failed in a 2004 special session on school finance, Gov. Rick Perry declared the issue an emergency during this year's regular session.

In the late hours of the session, Perry and Senate negotiators believed they had an agreement with House leaders, but Speaker Tom Craddick rejected the deal. House members blamed the Senate for acting too slowly.

Barring a successful special session, Texas students will lack adequate support for another school year because of lawmakers' embarrassing failure. Voters should keep that in mind next year.

The Austin American Statesmen:

[A] lesson from this session: Never mind bipartisanship. The Republicans can't even manage a partnership with one another.

House Speaker Tom Craddick, R-Midland, proved again that he is not a go-along-to-get-along kind of guy. He has achieved a reputation as the toughest negotiator in state government. But that's misleading, because negotiators, by definition, compromise to get things done. Craddick, a 36-year veteran of the House, doesn't necessarily want government to get things done.

Gov. Rick Perry and Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, both Republicans, proved they have little influence over Craddick. In last-minute talks, House negotiators apparently agreed to a compromise on school finance legislation. But Craddick rejected it, and the plan died.

My favorite editorial? The Fort Worth Star-Telegram. I normally do not post full-length articles, but this editorial deserves to be read in its entirety. Enjoy:

Give 'em an F

When the going got tough this year on the all-important issue of school finance, the Texas Legislature and its leaders couldn't produce what was asked of them.

No excuses, no amount of "we gave it our best" or "this is a very difficult thing to do" will change that.

All of these people, from Gov. Rick Perry, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and House Speaker Tom Craddick on down, were elected and sent to Austin with one of their principle assignments being to fix the school funding system.

They failed.

Equally, no amount of casting blame will change this discouraging reality.

But something has to change, because the way that Texas pays for public schools does not meet the needs of its children today and will be disastrously insufficient to educate the increasingly diverse and more difficult to teach children of tomorrow.

The Legislature has been preparing to confront the school finance problem for at least four years, with interim studies, special committees, expensive scholarly reports, advice from experts and even a 30-day special session last year all leading up to the effort to finally address the problem this year.

As if any more incentive were needed, an Austin judge heard weeks of testimony in a lawsuit brought by school districts and in late November ruled that the current school finance system is inadequate and unconstitutional.

State District Judge John Dietz ordered that the school funding system be shut down if the Legislature couldn't come up with a better plan by October. The Texas Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on an appeal of the case July 6.

What went wrong?

This is Texas, and talking about school funding means talking about taxes. Ideology, greed and ego got in the way.

Ideology transformed the effort to reshape school funding into an attempt to redesign the state's tax structure and reduce local property taxes. That turned an already difficult task into a nearly impossible one.

Still, it could have been done, but these legislators and their leaders couldn't do it.

Greed converted the deliberations into thinly veiled attempts to shuffle more money to specific interest groups or protect the money held by others.

Under Craddick's leadership, the House sought special treatment for wealthy school districts and pushed a regressive sales tax increase in order to preserve tax breaks for some businesses. The Senate under Dewhurst's leadership came up with more equitable plans but was not politically or philosophically crafty enough to handle unbending House negotiators -- or Craddick himself -- when it came time to merge differing proposals.

Ego -- or maybe just the temerity that comes from standing on uncertain political ground with next year's election in sight -- kept Perry from exercising the power of his office to move deliberations to a successful conclusion.

Perry has said that he worked decisively and consistently in the background with key legislative leaders. If so, there is little to show for it.

The education reform and school finance bills that were produced during this legislative session, their high points and their low points, will be and should be dissected and studied by interested parties in the coming weeks and probably will be debated in coming political campaigns.

Perhaps they will serve as starting points in the next effort to resolve this pressing problem.

That's good, but after years of looking to the Legislature for help, Texas public schools and the people who are dedicated to educating the state's children are left with a still-uncertain future.

This Legislature, and these state leaders, could not show results.

Texas cannot, and must not, settle for that.

The "Do Nothing" Legislature

By Byron LaMasters

It's certainly ironic that in the first session following an election where Republicans achieved complete power with majorities in Congress, the state Senate, the State House, and a lock on all Texas Constitutional offices - they are unable to accomplish much of anything. Newspapers across the state report...

The Austin American Statesman:

One hundred forty days ago, Texas lawmakers came to Austin promising to find a fair and legal way to pay for public education and to lower school property taxes.

During the next five months, they passed a two-year state budget that's more than 10 percent larger than the current budget. They garnered national attention by trying to ban sexy cheerleading in high schools. And they sent 1,370 bills to Gov. Rick Perry, including overhauls of the state's workers' compensation and Child Protective Services systems. [...]

As lawmakers left town late Monday, the question of how to pay for public schools and ease the burden on property owners remained unanswered. And that inaction by the Republican-controlled Legislature may well be the enduring legacy of the 79th Legislature.

The failure of a school finance plan is the failure of one party, and one party alone. We can thank Tom Craddick for that.

Craddick this month kept Democrats off the conference committees that negotiated school finance reform. And, earlier in the session, House Democrats, with a lone Republican, tried to bypass a committee vote and force a vote by the full House to further limit corporate money in elections. GOP groups are accused of misusing corporate dollars in 2002.

But House Republicans — even those who had co-sponsored the measure — shot it down, saying Democrats needed to respect the usual legislative process. (That process killed it in committee a few days later.)

The Dallas Morning News:

Texas lawmakers closed out a disappointing regular session and headed home Monday, touting a few notable accomplishments but leaving their No. 1 priority – the funding of public schools – in the dust. [...]

"I can't tell you how angry I am," said Rep. Dan Branch, R-Dallas. "My constituents were expecting school finance reform, property tax reform and Robin Hood reform – and we couldn't deliver on any of it."

It didn't help that the leaders of the two chambers – Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and House Speaker Tom Craddick – were sharply at odds over their respective plans and who's to blame. [...]

The session will be judged by the major issues not addressed, said Rep. Jim Dunnam of Waco, the House Democratic leader.

"We came in with a landmark opportunity to fix our schools, and that was not accomplished," he said. "The major pieces of policy that we should have taken care of were not taken care of."

The San Antonio Express-News covers the GOP spin:

"This has been a very successful session," Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst said. "We've had a lot of important legislation pass."

Dewhurst said "we're not giving up" on school finance, adding that he'd talked with House Speaker Tom Craddick on Monday despite their differences on the issue.

Craddick, who also judged the session a success, agreed that he and Dewhurst "said we're going to try to work together and see if we can find some kind of resolution" on school finance. [...]

Even before the session ended, Perry was touting lawmakers' work trying to reach agreement on schools and noting other legislative accomplishments.

"I don't know how big the mountain's got to be before we say, 'Heck of a session.' But we're real close to it," Perry said in the session's closing days as he announced agreement on workers' compensation and noted restrictions on asbestos lawsuits.

What a load of crap. Sen. Wentworth, for one, isn't buying it:

Even before the session ended, Perry was touting lawmakers' work trying to reach agreement on schools and noting other legislative accomplishments.

"I don't know how big the mountain's got to be before we say, 'Heck of a session.' But we're real close to it," Perry said in the session's closing days as he announced agreement on workers' compensation and noted restrictions on asbestos lawsuits.

And finally, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram:

One hundred and forty days of raucous politics came to an end Monday, the last day of a Texas legislative session that will probably be remembered as much for what failed as what passed.

Lying in the recycle bin were thousands of pages of what might have been: a new school finance system, a property tax cut, legalized slot machines, an overhaul of ethics laws, private school vouchers and the Willie Nelson Highway. [...]

"It's all over but the explaining," said Ross Ramsey, editor of the political newsletter Texas Weekly. "On the biggest issue of the session, they're going home empty-handed."

Tarrant County Republican Chair clarifies the priorities of of the "conservative movement":

Perry is wasting no time getting the message to conservative Republican voters that he has delivered. The governor has scheduled an event next weekend at Calvary Cathedral in Fort Worth, where he plans to sign legislation requiring minor girls to have written parental consent before they can get an abortion. He'll also sign a constitutional amendment -- it's just a formality, because only the voters can make it law -- designed to place an existing ban on gay marriage in the state constitution.

Voters will decide on the prohibition in November.

According to a letter sent by Perry's campaign, and forwarded by e-mail to supporters, Perry officials "want to completely fill this location with pro-family Christian friends who can celebrate with us" and might film the event for TV advertising later.

Pat Carlson, chairwoman of the Tarrant County Republican Party, said that if Hutchison runs against Perry, "it's very possible" that footage from the event would be used.

Carlson called the recently concluded meeting "not the best session, but not a bad session" and said that conservatives cared more about the abortion issue than changing the state's school finance system.

"School finance wasn't necessarily a priority of the conservative movement," Carlson said.

Ok, I think I get it. Gays = NO! Abortion = NO! KIDS, uhmmm = NO WAY! At least someone is honest about the priorities of the "conservative movement". As long as the gays and abortionists are stopped, who cares about the kids?

End of Session Notes

By Byron LaMasters

State Rep. Aaron Pena (D) has some end of session notes over at his blog.

Of interest...

• Pena predicts that a special session will be called near the end of June.
• 
  
• The Mexican-American Legislative Caucus picked Veronica Gonzalez and Rafael Anchia Freshmen of the Year.
• 
  
• The Democratic Caucus picked Yvonne Gonzalez-Tourilles and Marc Veasey for Freshmen of the Year.
• 
  
• The Legislative Study Group picked Hubert Vo their Freshman of the Year.
• 
  
• Melissa Noriega was given the "Joe Moreno Award" by the Democratic Caucus.
• 
  
• Rep. Rafael Anchia honored the late Rep. Joe Moreno by wearing a Houston Rockets jersey on the floor of the House.

In other news, via email, the Texas Legislative Black Caucus elected new officers:

Chair -- Representative Senfronia Thompson, Houston
1st Vice Chair -- Representative Terri Hodge, Dallas
2nd Vice Chair -- Representative Ruth Jones McClendon, San Antonio
Treasurer -- Representative Marc Veasey, Fort Worth
Secretary -- Representative Dawnna Dukes, Austin
Parliamentarian -- Representative Jesse Jones, Dallas
Legal Council -- Representative Joe Deshotel, Beaumont

No DINO's on this list... A special thanks for the leadership of the outgoing chair Garnet Coleman, and he certainly leaves the caucus in good hands with Senfronia Thompson.

Our Dumb Legislature

By Jim Dallas

Majikthise picks up an interesting note:

Silly legislators, everything is necessarily self-identical:

Jonathan Ichikawa writes:

Here is the full text of the newly proposed section of Article I of the Texas Constitution, proposed by HJR 6, which has been passed by both chambers:

Sec. 32. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.
(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

Well, yes, everything is self-identical. Nonetheless, though, this is one of those situations where a court would probably just sort of laugh and point to the clear legislative intent, viz., spiting them danged homos. And we all know there's nothing wrong or controversial with that!

Meanwhile, Our Dumb Legislature^TM continues to kill progress dead on the education front. As Kuff notes, school finance and tax reform is pretty much over with for this session, which ends in, oh, something like 48 hours. Would thirty more days help? Need we ask?

Remember now, this was the third attempt. The Senate took a shot at it in 2003 by unanimously passing a tax reform bill. The House and Governor Perry immediately pissed on it, and it was never spoken of again. (Anyone else think the bad blood this session between David Dewhurst and Tom Craddick can be traced back to that?) Perry called a special session in 2004, which petered out before the 30-day deadline having accomplished nothing other than the House voting 126-0 against a plan he himself put forward. And now this, thanks in part to Perry's special brand of leadership. I know this sort of thing is hard, but how much time and how many chances do you get before you're branded an abject failure?

Now here's a radical idea folks: why don't we just follow the advice of crazy hippies like Ivan Illich (rest in peace), and make school optional? After all, our fine role models in the House and Senate are sending a strong message to children that education really isn't that important anyways.

Update: Turns out my day-counting skills were off. I thought the Session ended on Tuesday. Kuff says it's practically already over. The House Web site says they've recessed for lunch and will start anew at 2:30; but nonetheless, they've got to finish by midnight. Unless I slept longer than I thought, I was wrong.

Gay Foster Care Ban Stripped From CPS Bill

By Byron LaMasters

The Houston Chronicle reports:

House and Senate negotiators agreed Friday to overhaul Texas' troubled child protection agency by slashing investigative caseloads and relying more on private contractors. es at the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services. [...]

Conferees removed from the final version a House amendment that would have banned gay foster parents. [...]

Rep. Robert Talton, R-Pasadena, who authored the amendment to ban gay foster parents, refused to sign the compromise.

"The bill was about child protective services and adult protective services. I certainly didn't want it to get sidetracked on an entirely different issue that was very volatile," said House sponsor Rep. Suzanna Gratia Hupp, R-Lampasas.

Hupp said she is "mildly concerned" that Talton might try to sway conservative members against the bill, but she predicted such an attempt would not succeed.

"I believe (House members) will see the greater issue at hand, which is the reformation of those agencies," she said.

With this victory, it's never too early to look ahead towards 2006. The Austin Chronicle reports:

Gay rights advocates predict a victory at the ballot box in 2006 – even if Texans approve a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages this year. The reason? Political and social activists will pull out all stops to ensure that certain lawmakers receive a thorough drubbing at the polls next year, said Randall Ellis, executive director of the Lesbian/Gay Rights Lobby of Texas.

The targeted lawmakers were already on shaky ground before voting to place the divisive gay marriage question on the Nov. 8 ballot. For example, Austin Rep. Todd Baxter angered constituents early in the session with his vote for a roundly hated school finance bill, just four months after narrowly surviving a re-election bid in his West Austin swing district. [...]

The Democrats' political hit list for 2006 mainly focuses on the House side, where Baxter and Houston Republicans Martha Wong and Joe Nixon are viewed as the most vulnerable. Wong's district takes in a portion of Houston's gay community in Montrose; she is said to be eyeing a state senate seat in a more conservative district, but that depends on whether the incumbent, Kyle Janek, steps aside to seek U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison's seat, who may or may not run for governor next year.

There are other House members at risk. Democratic Party strategist Kelly Fero points to a few seemingly sacred cows – Public Education Chairman Kent Grusendorf, R-Arlington, and chief homophobes Robert Talton, R-Pasadena, and Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, who is the lead sponsor of the same-sex marriage prohibition. Fero said Talton and Chisum are both susceptible – "not because the numbers on paper demonstrate their vulnerability, but because their arrogance and intolerance have become an embarrassment."

Some interesting gossip here. This is the first time I've heard that Kyle Janek is considering a run for U.S. Senate. In terms of targeting, Wong and Baxter are in the obvious first tier of most any Democratic target list. Nixon, Talton and Grusendorf are a bit further down the list (and Chisum a lot further down the list), but I would certainly like to see all of the above be challenged by a strong, well-funded Democrat.

Run-off Notes

By Byron LaMasters

Kuff, The Jeffersonian and San Antonio Election 2005 report on the latest from San Antonio. Third place finisher Carroll Schubert endorsed Phil Hardberger in the mayoral run-off.

In the Austin City Council Place 3 run-off, Margot Clarke has racked up some union support that went to Gregg Knauppe in round one. They include the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 520, the Central Texas Building Trades Council and the Sheetmetal Workers Local 67.

Justifying Abortion

By Jim Dallas

Nathan Newman has a post on the rhetoric of abortion which ought to provoke considerable thought about the first principles of the pro-choice movement.

As an aside, the "pro-choice" moniker was adopted in large part to put the focus on the libertarian rhetoric Newman criticizes. So I think there's very little doubt that Newman has at least correctly identified the dominant mode of anti-prohibitionist rhetoric, viz., that abortion is not good, but criminalization is and would be bad (or worse). Newman cites Howard Dean's statement last Sunday as Exhibit A:

I don't know anybody who thinks abortion is a good thing. I don't know anybody in either party who is pro-abortion. The issue is not whether we think abortion is a good thing. The issue is whether a woman has a right to make up her own mind about her health care

For what it's worth, I'm going to make a few remarks defending the libertarian perspective against Newman's critique.

First, I take issue at Newman's claim that the pro-choice perspective is amoral:

Abortion is not just some individual decision with no effects on broader society. That kind of rhetoric is a copout that is unconvincing. Allowing abortion is critical to equality for women and whether unwanted children are forced on parents is bound to have effects not just on those families but on our communities. Most abortion rights activists have not been libertarians who thought individual choices have no effect on broader society, but people who thought the availability of abortion causes profound and needed changes in that broader society: increasing women's ability to participate equally in the workplace, changing power relations between men and women within the family, and encouraging family planning so that children were wanted and not abused.

This is not to say that abortion does not raise moral dilemmas or should be encouraged indiscriminately, but those in favor of abortion rights have to argue that, overall, we have a better society because abortion is legal than if abortion was criminalized.

Abortion politics should not be a choice between moral injunctions from the rightwing and amoral libertarian platitudes from the pro-choice side. It should be a choice between two visions of creating a good society, with progressives arguing that their vision is the more profoundingly just and moral alternative.

I'd argue in response that there is a strong moral position in defending the autonomy and dignity of women, and that is precisely what the "amoral libetarian platitudes" of the keep-your-laws-off-my-body crowd amount to. Indeed, I'd argue that such strong claims are necessary to respond to the equally moralistic injunctions of the save-the-zygotes posse. When the other side is comparing you to Hitler and claiming that abortion is the worst moral crisis since slavery and the Holocaust, you really can't respond with blunt utilitarian claims about crime and the economy.

Of course, it would be unfair of me to characterize Newman's critique as being only that; clearly, Nathan Newman does have profound respect for womens' rights and their equal participation in society.

Let me draw an analogy. I was having a discussion with another law student yesterday about the death penalty, which she opposes strongly and I am, at best, lukewarm about (more against than for, but definitely mixed). In this discussion, she pointed to the well-documented disproporitionately large number of black men on death row and the inherent racism which can, and should, be logically inferred from this.

My argument, however, was that disparate impact is, quite frankly, a "racism problem", not a capital punishment problem per se.

Here's the analogy - if women need abortions to be equal in society, then I'd suggest we've got a much bigger sexism problem to deal with. Now, I suppose it could be argued that this isn't comparable - women have a monopoly on the baby business, and certainly there is considerable strain placed on women individually and as a class because of this. That said, I am still not convinced that abortion is the "great equalizer", and even if it were that this would be a per se justification for legal abortion by itself.

The libertarian position, however, affords an opportunity to subtly shoe-horn these concerns into an argument without really claiming they make all abortions A-OK. That is, in discussing personal autonomy, the issue of compassion towards women generally has to be discussed. The right-wing groups like Focus on the Fetus, err, Family has spent years attempting to humanize a clump of cells and dehumanize adult women as criminals.

A final issue I'd like to address is the issue of selectivity. The libertarian position, of course, does not claim that abortion is a "good thing." But that is not the same as claiming that all abortions are unjustified. Indeed, when Newman asks, "if abortion is never a good thing, then why should anyone have the option to have one," he is touching on this, albeit in a way which misses the subtle distinction between characterizing abortion generally and some abortions specifically.

For example, "war" is not a good thing and very few people hanker for Four More Wars. Yet, almost everybody aside from a few absolute-pacifists can think of a war that was worth fighting.

Certainly, conceding ground in cases where abortions are not justified but merely rationalized on some abstract principle is not exactly a good opening move. But in the larger picture, it may be a better way to piece together a pro-choice majority than trying to argue abortion is not a sin needing justification whatsoever.

At the very least, I think what Newman is proposing is a very long-term project, moving public opinion at a glacial pace. Given the fact that pro-criminalization politicians and activist-judicial nominees stand ready to crush reproductive rights at virtually any moment, I'm not sure it's a practical proposal.

All your media are belong to Chris Bell

By Jim Dallas

We get letters:

Just a quick note to let you know that Chris Bell is going on the FOX News Live Weekend to talk about stem cell research. As some of you know, Chris has recast the stem cell research debate more a morals perspective and wrote a column about it that is posted here on his website. Chris will be on the Fox News Channel Saturday around 1:20 p.m. Texas time.

Also, the national AP wire just moved a story about the endless KBH question, but Chris is quoted saying something smart, so we like the article. Read it here.

Finally, the DeLay lawsuit has some impact on the House Ethics Committee’s reaction to the Chris Bell complaint. R.G. Ratcliffe picked up on that angle here.

I don't own a television, but for those that do, there you go.

District 143 Special Election Day Set

By Jim Dallas

November 8.

Play Dirty, Pay Big

By Andrea Meyer

State District Judge Joe Hart has ruled that Texans for a Republican Majority must now pay up to the tune of $196,660 in damages to five Democrats who lost their races as a result of over a half-million dollars in illegal campaign money funneled to Republican opponents. The recipients include Ann Kitchen, who lost her race to Todd Baxter after both being redistricted and falling victim to the filthy politics practiced by the Republicans. Her award comes to over $87,000. Although we lost an intelligent, capable representative to an individual such as Baxter, who couldn't even campaign by himself, I'm glad that there is some justice that hits Republicans where it strikes at their hearts, aka their wallets.

Here is the TCDP's site, and they provide a link to the Statesman and a full story.

State House Freshmen of the Year Named

By Byron LaMasters

Aaron Pena breaks the news:

Before the membership learns the identities of the "Freshmen of the Year" I will take the liberty (with Yoda's blessing) of breaking the news to the readers of this journal who the winners are. There were a number of top notch members in the running. John Otto (R) and Armando Martinez (D) are the recipients.

Best wishes to all the Freshmen class who have done a fine job this session.

Austin Early Voting Starts Today

By Byron LaMasters

Today is the first day to vote in the Austin City Council Place 3 run-off between Margot Clarke and Jennifer Kim.

Early vote locations here.

I voted just about an hour ago, and I think I'll just keep yall guessing as to who I voted for. I do not intend to issue a personal endorsement in this race. I am a member of four local clubs. Of them, the Central Austin Democrats, Austin Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus and the Austin Stonewall Democrats have endorsed Margot Clarke. The University Democrats have endorsed Jennifer Kim.

"Killing Nine Lives to Create One"

By Byron LaMasters

It's nice to see a pro-life Democrat point out the sheer lunacy and hypocrisy of the arguments of those who oppose embryonic stem cell research. Since half of embryos of potential "snowflake babies" do not survive the "thawing" process, a consistent pro-lifer would argue that such process constituted "destruction of a human life in order to save a human life". Hmmm... that sounds familiar.

For pro-lifers conflicted on embryonic stem cell research, read this post on Greg's Opinion.

San Antonio Run-off a Squeaker in Survey USA Poll

By Byron LaMasters

I heard rumors earlier this week that Hardberger had taken a large lead in the polls in the San Antonio mayoral run-off race, which surprised me a little bit, but not too much. The vast majority of Shubert voters are likely to vote for Hardberger or stay home. In the end, this race will come down to turnout above all else. Survey USA has posted a poll showing an extremely close race within the margin of error:

San Antonio Mayor Runoff
5/24/2005

Hardberger - 50%
Castro - 47%
Undecided - 2%

Data Collected: 5/21/05 - 5/23/05
Geography: City of San Antonio
Sample Population: 447 Likely Voters
Margin of Error: 4.7%
Client: WOAI-TV San Antonio

Update: Analysis at The Red State, The Jeffersonian and Kuff.

A Brief Note

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

I havn't been online in 5 days so anyone trying to contact me, that's why. But I find it really sad that when I do make it on, I find that 3 Senate Democrats were traitors on HJR 6. Especially after you pledge to keep it off the ballot (because we all know how smart the voters of Texas are) and thus the books. To you Senators Lucio and Madla in particular, the next time legislation comes up that strikes at the heart of your Hispanic contituants, someone please remind me not to give a damn and sell myself out for some other shitty two-bit piece of legislation.

To the 8 of you who voted against it, just like you did against DOMA, thank you. But next time (like there are any more next times except maybe the demonization of gay foster parents or rounding us up and registering us) please be aware you can't trust the word of certain Senators that claim to stand up for minority rights.

Things are okay here in Fredericksburg otherwise, the councilman is hard at work (though you Austinites may get to see him in July for a DFA MeetUp if things pan out).

And now, I need to respond to a certain candidate that is mulling a bid against Lamar Smith for 2006 (who has been mentioned around the comments). I'm excited and will report soon; I'll be back in Austin this Sunday for the summer.

Forcing the Veto on Stem Cell Research

By Byron LaMasters

Good news from the U.S. House:

Ignoring President Bush's veto threat, the House voted Tuesday to loosen limits on embryonic stem cell research, approving a measure supporters said could speed cures for diseases but opponents viewed as akin to abortion.

Bush called the bill a mistake and said he would veto it. The House approved it by a 238-194 vote, well short of the two-thirds majority that would be needed to override a veto.

The bill has the votes in the senate, and when it passes the senate, the bill will force a veto. It's a shame that countries like South Korea will be taking the lead on the issue of embryonic stem cell research, but hopefully other states will follow California's lead in instituting broad statewide programs.

However, forcing Bush to veto a bill that would not save a single life will allow the America public see how Bush is beholden to the interests of the pro-life absolutist / theocratic wing of the Republican party over the bipartisan pro-science and research majority in Congress. The bill would only use embryonic stem cell lines that would be thrown out anyways, will force Bush to veto a popular issue and hopefully see his approval ratings drop further. Any bets on when he will dip below 40%?

Revenge of the Sith

By Andrew Dobbs

WARNING: the following film review contains excessive dorkiness and a few spoilers. Still, as one writer I saw noted, if you don't know what happens in Revenge of the Sith, you probably were surprised by the ending of Passion of the Christ.

I've been meaning to write this post for a couple of days now, as I saw Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith for the first time on Saturday. Yes, for the first time as I went to see it yet again on Sunday night. I hope I get to see it a time or two more on the big screen, as this film is easily the best Star Wars feature since The Empire Strikes Back and lightyears away from the first two prequels, which were staggering in their awfulness and devastating in their disappointment.

Revenge of the Sith is much like Empire in that they both end darkly. At the end of Empire, the Federation has been weakened by a resurgent Galactic Empire, Luke Skywalker is maimed by Darth Vader who promptly informs him that he is his father. The likelihood that peace and freedom will return to the galaxy and balance returned to the Force looks grim indeed. In this film, the "Chosen One"-- Anakin Skywalker-- allows his jealousy, selfishness, self-doubt and anger to turn him to the Dark Side, being crowned Darth Vader by the Chancellor (soon thereafter Emporer) Palpatine, aka Darth Sidious, before participating in some unspeakable crimes. The darkness of the film gives it a far more serious feel and less artificial tone than the last two films, and since the struggle is largely internal the over-the-top lightsaber battles are frequently punctuated by compelling dialogue.

That's right, I said "compelling dialogue", something the last two films were criminally lacking. Indeed, there are some flops of lines-- virtually all of the exchanges between Anakin and Padme are wooden and slightly embarassing-- but the performances of the superb Ian McDiarmind (the Emporer) and Ewan McGregor (Obi-Wan Kenobi) and the fantastic direction of a much more interesting Hayden Christiansen (Anakin/Vader) more than make up for these shortfalls.

I will say, however, that Lucas depends far too much on technical wizardry. Shortly after I saw the movie on Saturday I watched the original Star Wars (heretofore known as A New Hope, the episode's title) and the difference in the films was stark. Where the lightsaber battles in the new films are so fast paced they are practically epileptic, the ultimate battle in New Hope between Vader and Kenobi was subdued and classic. While the dogfighting scenes in the new films are cluttered with thousands of computer-generated bits of irrelevance, the old films had a simple and conservative look that made the scenes that much more compelling. And because the landscapes of the far off worlds of the original trilogy had to be so simplistic the writing and acting took on greater meaning. Lucas has made a great film in Sith, but it takes about 45 minutes to get good. Before that you feel the same dread you felt sitting in Phantom Menace or Attack of the Clones; afterwards you feel the excitement of the original films-- particularly New Hope and Empire. Were I Lucas' boss, I would have started out by cutting the special effects budget by about 75% and told him to find a way to make it work. The film would have been the best of all the films. As it stands, I'd say it is probably the third best-- significantly behind Empire and New Hope but slightly ahead of Jedi (the film where Lucas began his habit of substituting special effects for plot).

Briefly, there has been some talk of the politics of the movie. I think that Lucas tries too hard to quickly slip an anti-Bush message into the movie. My biggest problem is that he handles it poorly-- he could have easily made it the tale of a power-hungry leader undermining traditional democratic institutions in order to establish a brutal colonial order across the galaxy and the liberal-minded Jedi fighting him off. Instead, he takes the same old storyline (with few parallels to today's situation) and tries to throw in some one-liners that fall flat. Padme's tearful rejoinder as the Galactic Senate cheers on Palpatine's grasp for power of "So this is how freedom dies: to thunderous applause" is gripping; but when Anakin says that "if you aren't with me you are my enemy" and Obi-Wan responds that "only a Sith thinks in absolutes" seems to go against the grain of the story. The Jedi are fearless defenders of liberty and the light side of the force against the encroachments of the Dark Side. That seems pretty absolutist to me. Rather, Lucas should have either left the politics at the door (the best option) or had him respond with something to the effect of "I will proudly be called the enemy of the Dark Side." The message is muddled and unnecessary.

In the end, the film is interesting, morally complex, emotionally engaging and exciting. I would recomend it to all fans of the series. It will restore your faith in the series after the previous two dreadful movies and get your blood pumping for the beautiful mythology of the Star Wars story. May the Force be with you.

Vouchers Fail in the State House, Did Leininger Offer Bribes?

By Byron LaMasters

Good news (emphasis mine):

A plan to make Texas one of the first states with a large-scale voucher program died Monday night after a raucous debate and a series of close votes in the House.

After the bill was gutted to make vouchers available only for public and not private schools, Speaker Tom Craddick sustained a parliamentary challenge that killed the issue for this session. [...]

Rep. Scott Hochberg, D-Houston, was one of several members who tried to strip the pilot program from the bill.

"This is a proposal that would drain millions of dollars from public school budgets at a time we can't seem to come up with money for textbooks we've already promised to the kids," said Hochberg.

Hochberg's amendment was tabled 72-71, with Craddick casting the deciding vote after an initial vote yielded a tie. Houston Democrats Kevin Bailey and Harold Dutton were not present for the vote. [...]

A second vote on another amendment to strip the provision failed on a 72-72 tie with Craddick voting to table the amendment.

After that, however, Rep. Charlie Geren, R-Fort Worth, succeeded with two amendments that proved lethal. One stripped out the Dallas and Fort Worth districts, and the other removed private and parochial schools.

The chamber was buzzing Monday with word that Craddick and longtime Republican backer James Leininger were pressuring undecided lawmakers in a back office.

Leininger, a San Antonio businessman, has used part of his fortune to set up a voucher program there.

One lawmaker said at least 12 Republicans had been called into a meeting. Craddick's office would neither confirm nor deny the widespread reports about Leininger's presence.

It's not as bad as Bo Pilgrim handing out $10,000 checks on the state senate floor, but Leninger is one of the top GOP donors in Texas, and I would not be surprised if bribes or primary challenge threats were made in the Speaker's office to state house members.

Update: You can watch the debate from yesterday on the house floor here. The Quorum Report has much more including time markers for several of the important moments.

More at PinkDome and Aaron Pena's blog (with a Star Wars twist) as well.

Nuclear Winter of Our Discontent

By Andrea Meyer

I agree with Byron when I say that I am not too happy with this compromise. 100%. Bush's extremist nominees basically get a green light, and only in "extraordinary circumstances" does the minority get to filibuster. I'm sorry, but at whose discretion? Who is to say what are extraordinary circumstances? According to Daily Kos, one of my favorite Senators, Russ Feingold, D-WI, isn't exactly basking in the afterglow of the Dems and Repubs hopping into bed together:

This is not a good deal for the U.S. Senate or for the American people. Democrats should have stood together firmly against the bullying tactics of the Republican leadership abusing their power as they control both houses of Congress and the White House. Confirming unacceptable judicial nominations is simply a green light for the Bush administration to send more nominees who lack the judicial temperament or record to serve in these lifetime positions. I value the many traditions of the Senate, including the tradition of bipartisanship to forge consensus. I do not, however, value threatening to disregard an important Senate tradition, like occasional unlimited debate, when necessary. I respect all my colleagues very much who thought to end this playground squabble over judges, but I am disappointed in this deal.

Well said, Senator. I hope to send my resume to you in '08--if Dems are still allowed to run for the presidency.

Let's look at this "deal": (Quoted from the AP, courtesy of Yahoo!)

The agreement, which applies to Supreme Court nominees, said future judicial nominations should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances," with each Democratic senator holding the discretion to decide when those conditions had been met.

Priscilla Owen, considered a wing-nut by extremists in her own party, is not an extraordinary circumstance? And it us up to each Democratic senator? Really? and what exactly are the qualifications for an "extraordinary circumstance?" I suppose the Republicans will dictate protocol, and milquetoast moderates "leading" our party will concede to those as well.

"In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement," Republicans said they would oppose any attempt to make changes in the application of filibuster rules. But Sen. Mike DeWine (news, bio, voting record), R-Ohio, said the agreement was conditional on Democrats upholding their end of the deal"

So, close monitoring, filibusters only allowed after close monitoring by the majority. They don't like how we use the filibuster, and they'll take it away? Is that what my former senator meant? I really don't like the sounds of this, to be honest.

Folks, don't get me wrong--I am happy that some spirit of bipartisanship still exists in the Senate. I am thrilled that Bill Frist looks bad. However, I think this compromise delivered a hollow victory. The filibuster, to be used under terms that are still vague, is damaged goods. Did Frist really have the votes he needed? Maybe, maybe not.

I listened to a lot of impassioned speeches regarding this issue over the past few days. I listened to great orators such as Kennedy, Baucus, and other patriots that were prepared to go down fighting. Although Byrd was an architect of this deal, he gave a great speech yesterday. There is a reason people like Kennedy are considered the lions of the Senate. I am saddened by what our Senate has become, however. It is a place where the Republican party, once great, has continually used as a forum to abuse their power, bully the minority (who still has rights, by the way), and break rules. What makes me sadder is that they continue to get away with it.

I know most of y'all will not agree with me. I know that a couple of other BOR bloggers will be quick to recite the GOP talking points, and that certain regular posters will leave their trollish, Freeper remarks. Honestly, go ahead. I'm one of the few Democrats who is willing to stand up for my beliefs, and that is what helps me look in the mirror in the morning.

This deal smells rotten, like the post-coital cigarette the White House is undoubtedly enjoying right now. Hopefully, when the terms become clearer, the picture will be rosier. Or it will appear as such until we take off those glasses and see the barren, nulcear winter wasteland once known as a free and open republic. Only time will tell. Let's hope we don't need those glasses.

On the Filibuster Compromise

By Byron LaMasters

While I don't like the compromise, it was probably the second best solution for Democrats (with the best solution being a defeat of the proposed rule, but from what I've read - Reid only had 49 or at best 50 votes, so Frist would have won).

My guess is that Reid signed off on this at the last minute, and then prepared to declare victory. I'm disappointed that three right-wing activist judges will be confirmed, but most importantly, senate tradition has been preserved, and that Democrats will have the option of filibustering a radical Supreme Court appointment. In addition, two more right-wing judges will either be defeated or withdrawn. Furthermore, this is a huge defeat for Bill Frist. He's already an anathema to Democrats of all stripes, and now the far-right James Dobson / theocrat wing of the Republican Party are hyperventilating over Frist's failure to unite the GOP caucus.

Reid's statement is great:

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) released the following statement Monday after 14 senators struck a deal to avert the nuclear option and allow votes on certain judicial nominees.

“There is good news for every American in this agreement. The so-called 'nuclear option' is off the table. This is a significant victory for our country, for democracy, and for all Americans. Checks and balances in our government have been preserved.

“The integrity of future Supreme Courts has been protected from the undue influences of a vocal, radical faction of the right that is completely out of step with mainstream America. That was the intent of the Republican 'nuclear option' from the beginning. Tonight, the Senate has worked its will on behalf of reason, responsibility and the greater good.

“Abuse of power will not be tolerated, and attempts to trample the Constitution and grab absolute control are over. We are a separate and equal branch of government. That is our Founding Fathers’ vision, and one we hold dear.

“I offered Senator Frist several options similar to this compromise, and while he was not able to agree, I am pleased that some responsible Republicans and my colleagues were able to put aside their differences and work from the center. I do not support several of the judges that have been agreed to because their views and records display judicial activism that jeopardize individual rights and freedoms. But other troublesome nominees have been turned down. And, most importantly, the U.S. Senate retains the checks and balances to ensure all voices are heard in our democracy.

“I am grateful to my colleagues who worked so hard to achieve this agreement. I am hopeful that we can quickly turn to work on the people’s business. We need to ensure our troops have the resources they need to fight in Iraq and that Americans are free from terrorism. We need to protect retiree’s pensions and long-term retirement security. We need to expand health care opportunities for all families. We need to address rising gasoline prices and energy independence. And we need to restore fiscal responsibility and rebuild our economy so that it lifts up all American workers. That is our reform agenda, the people’s reform agenda. Together, we can get the job done.”

The full text of the agreement is here.

Nuclear-Free Zone

By Jim Dallas

The status quo was preserved. We're playing defense. That's all we can ask for.

Yippee!

Y'all Just Don't Get It

By Andrew Dobbs

Late last week I took on NARAL for their endorsement of Republican Senator Lincoln Chaffee in Rhode Island. Unfortunately, many people have no knowledge of what is going on there and declined to read my post terribly closely, so I need to respond to the criticisms here.

There are NO pro-life Democrats in this race. The only two Democrats running-- Matt Brown and Sheldon Whitehouse-- are both pro-abortion rights. Jim Langevin was considering the race, but dropped out when NARAL started gathering support for Brown in particular, but pro-abortion rights Democrats in general. So NARAL didn't stake out their independent position on their single issue by supporting a pro-abortion rights Republican over a pro-life Democrat, they supported a pro-abortion rights Republican over not one, but two abortion rights Democrats.

That is my problem. I don't expect NARAL, or the Sierra Club or the NAACP or any other left-liberal single issue organization to support Democrats universally-- they are independent of our party. Republicans likewise do not expect the NRA or the Chamber of Commerce to support them just because they are Republicans. But when there is an issue where the parties are dramatically opposed, it makes no sense to support a candidate who supports a minority view within his party when he'll simply turn around and vote for leadership opposed to that cause. NARAL's endorsement of Chaffee will go a long way to helping him defeat his pro-choice opponent, and thus usher in pro-life leadership in the Senate. If they had any political sense they would have waited for the Democratic primary and then supported the Democrat. But they screwed themselves over and stabbed the only party that cares about their issue in the back. It was an idiotic move on their part.

In PA, I expect NARAL to issue a "no endorsement." If the race in Texas is Kay Bailey Hutchison versus a pro-life Democrat (say, Charlie Stenholm, who is not expected to run), I would expect them to endorse KBH. Come to think of it, they can totally make this up if they very publicly endorse KBH in the GOP primary. Are you listening, NARAL? You do that, the GOP nominates the roundly disliked Perry for governor and we beat him in November. Now THAT would be good politics.

Judges, Filibusters and Conservativism

By Andrew Dobbs

It is very likely that May 24, 2005 will be a day that future generations of Americans will read about in their history classes (assuming they still teach history at that point, an increasingly unlikely prospect). The passage in their textbook will begin with the battle over the filibuster, saying that in from the 1910s to the 1970s opposition to the filibuster was a liberal litmus test. Liberals, a majority of the Congress from the 1930s until the 1970s, saw the act as a way that the Senate's right-wing, often anti-civil rights minority kept socially progressive bills from getting an "up-or-down vote." It will then say that with the divisions of power that began in the 1970s and continued until the 1990s the filibuster became less important and less of an issue for both sides. This consensus ruled until an absolute Republican majority came into power in 2003 and was strengthened by George W. Bush's reelection in 2004 and the minority Democrats (since the 1970s, realigned as an almost exclusively liberal party) began using the process to block judicial nominations to appeals courts. Republicans began threatening to end the practice, and on May 24, 2005 launched what had been termed the "nuclear option"-- the barring of the filibuster for judicial nominees. After Bush had all of his nominees to appeals courts approved on slim up or down votes, Republicans and others began wondering why the process would be needed at all, even for legislative priorities. In 2006, as minority Democrats began resisting Social Security privatization and regressive tax reforms, Republicans managed to end the filibuster for legislation thus ending the Senate's traditional role as a moderating force on the more reactionary elements of the House.

This is a tragedy, and a confusing development as well. The filibuster is a fundamentally conservative institution. The founders of the Senate and its reformers who helped to codify the current filibuster rule in the early part of the 20th century were fearful of government power. They knew that the natural instinct of humanity was towards self-interest and grasps for power and wealth, politicians being the worst culprits in this regard. Thus they divided the powers of government into three coequal branches with checks on one another's power. Still, they knew that the legislative branch was the most likely to become a hotbed of popular passion; close to the people, it could easily be consumed by mob rule. In order to quiet the passions of the heedless masses they divided the legislative branch into two chambers-- a House that would be directly elected and proportioned by population (and thus more susceptible to passionate masses) and a Senate that would be appointed by legislatures, two from each state, and far more deliberative. When establishing the rules of the Senate, the body's founders-- 10 of whom had been delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 4 of whom had signed the Declaration of Independence, including such luminaries as Rufus King, Richard Henry Lee, James Monroe and Samuel Johnston-- developed the idea of unlimited debate. Any member could continue debate indefinitely, thus allowing the body to easily thwart offensive or extreme pieces of legislation. The filibuster required legislation to be mainstream-- if a significant number of Senators were seriously opposed to a measure, it would be blocked. This process kept government power in check for generations, and is part and parcel of the founders' ideals of limited and divided government.

But now the conservatives want to get rid of an institution that promotes classically conservative values. The whole scenario seems odd until you consider the the recent history of American conservativism. American conservativism is a peculiar movement, in that it is essentially the morphing of two diametrically opposed traditions that almost everywhere else in the world form opposite sides of the political divide. Conservativism in the US is essentially the marriage of classical liberalism (which in Europe and elsewhere usually led to the formation of a Liberal Party) and traditionalism (which typically meant a Conservative Party that defended the church, the aristocracy and the crown abroad). The two have managed to work out a nice compact, wherein American conservatives recognize that virtue is the highest public good, but that virtue based on coercion is morally bankrupt. Therefore conservatives enforce strict political liberty and promote traditional values. The process has created a powerful political movement and a series of great leaders-- from Alexander Hamilton and John Calhoun until Robert Taft and Barry Goldwater.

But now the movement is in trouble. Since the late 1970s the traditionalist element of American conservativism has been ascendent. Where the two elements once provided a check on one another (traditionalism trumping the libertinism inherent in lassiez-faire thought, liberalism defeating the paternalistic impulses of traditionslists), the creeping moralism of traditionalists has spread further with each election. With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 the one thing that kept either side from trying too hard to grasp ultimate power-- the united front against communism abroad and leftism at home-- was interrupted. The moralists now had an opportunity to grasp the whole movement for themselves, and the beginning of the War on Terror in 2001 now created a new struggle based not so much on economics and politics (as was the battle against Communism), but rather religion. It became clear that religosity would now be a litmus test of conservativism. Essentially, the libertarian elements of conservativism are being choked off, creating America's first classically conservative party. No more are they interested in checking government power, but rather in promoting traditional social establishment-- the maintenance of class order, the expansion of federal power, the establisment of quasi-official religion and restrictions of discourse in the name of traditional ways of life. As the libertarian-right is further marginalized, the liberal movement in the US is reacting to the movement on the right. Now Democrats have become a traditionally liberal party-- promoting social experimentation, greater autonomy and political involvement and secularism. The divide now defines American politics.

Right wing movements abroad, which have always been predominantly traditionalist, have typically depended on the courts for the promotion of their policy. Iran provides one example (before Republicans start screaming, I'm not comparing the GOP to Iranian Islamists, just saying that Republicans belong on a significantly less extreme part of the traditionalist political spectrum), Francoist Spain another. The lifetime appointments and absolute authority of the courts harken to a more aristocratic and royalist past. Executive authority is of course another element of traditionally conservative government. The end of the judicial filibuster is simply the Senate prostrating itself in front of the power of a mighty executive-- the President-- in his quest to create a traditionalist consensus on our nation's highest courts. The Senate has a plurality of traditionalists, led by Bill Frist, that are moving in this direction even if they don't realize it. The Democrats make up the opposition liberals and a small number of typically American conservative Republicans in the mold of Goldwater and Taft (John McCain, Chuck Hagel, John Warner) make up the third element. Whether the American conservatives decide to listen to the liberal aspects of their philosophy or the traditionalist aspects of it remains to be seen, but their decision will swing tomorrow's action.

With all of this talk of the Senate and larger political movements, it must be remembered that Bush himself is simply doing what Presidents used to do, but have been to timid to do in the face of an increasingly powerful Congress over the course of the last 20-30 years-- appointing daring jurists who stand boldly for the president's ideology. The Supreme Court is a sad example of the timidity of both parties, but particularly Democrats, over the last two decades in the realm of court appointments. Where is the Oliver Wendell Holmes, the Earl Warren, the William O. Douglas or Abe Fortas? The best jurist on the court, despite my personal disagreements with his philosophy, is undeniably Antonin Scalia. If you reflexively disagree with me, I would challenge you to read his opinions (or even better, his dissents). They are magnificently written, tightly reasoned (from a philosophical position, originalism, that I tend to be skeptical of) and intellectually stimulating. They seek to lay down a broad vision of the constitution and a general philosophy of government. While Rhenquist and his compatriots find ways to narrow the streams of thought trickling down from the Court, Scalia seeks to flood the traditions of American government with a downpour of constitutional thought. Yet at one point the Court was full of men like Scalia (and as of yet they have all been men as O'Connor lacks the force and vision, while Ginsburg is closer, but still no cigar), particularly on the liberal side of the equation. Democrats have been gunshy of Congressional approval though, and Clinton chose to nominate bland and short-sighted, if technically qualified candidates. Reagan and Bush I made the same mistakes, though Reagan did nominate Bork and Scalia (both brilliant men that I disagree with) and Bush thought he would be doing well with Thomas, who simply lacks the intellectual power of Scalia. Bush seeks to remake American jurisprudence by putting brilliant, visionary, ideologically serious candidates on the Court. Democrats should do the same thing when they get the opportunity.

In the end, this is a tale of an ongoing tectonic shift in American politics. Party realignment has made dramatic shifts from the mid 1780s until the early 1800s, from the 1820s until the late 1850s, from 1890s until the 1920s and from the 1960s until the 1980s. We are now in the beginning of the latest restructuring, and this realignment has the curious result of taking American politics into a structure that looks remarkably like 19th century European or early 20th century Latin American politics. A nationalist, traditionalist, elitist, classically conservative party is emerging from the ashes of a long-standing conservative consensus; an internationalist, experimental, secular, liberal party has risen from the wreckage of a populist-progressive coalition. The debate is no longer whether government should be expanded or not, but rather if it should be used to strengthen the traditional bastions of the powerful, or to radically rearrange the structure of our society. Both are worrisome, and if May 24, 2005 goes down in history as it appears it will, it will be too late to unring the bell that tolls for the American way of life.

A Shoutout from The Commanding Heights

By Jim Dallas

This summer I have started my first downtown (OK, not downtown, but right-next-to-downtown) job and so I tend to get almost misty about the amazing potential of Houston and, more abstractly, the "modern American city" etc. etc. Cue Petula Clark.

In The New Republic (registration required), Joel Kotkin says its time to ditch romanticism and bring back realism:

Cities are not doomed, far from it; this is one point on which Richard Florida and I agree. But two major things need to happen in order for cities to be saved. First, they must undertake a CAT scan of sorts, which would reveal, underneath the glossy exterior of arts centers and arenas and hip downtowns, the reality of lost jobs, dysfunctional schools, and crumbling infrastructure. Second, they need to acquire the political will to attack these issues head-on despite the inevitable roadblocks.

What is needed is for cities to craft their own New Deal. Given their shrinking political power, they will not be able to extract resources from Washington or most state capitals. They will have to get smart about how they are run and focus their resources on basic issues, like schools, infrastructure, boosting small business, and creating jobs--rather than promoting bread, circuses, and tattoo parlors.

This will mean making choices. New York needs to decide that fixing its subways represents a more important use of its bonding authority than a stadium for the Jets. Los Angeles needs to decide its biggest priority lies in preventing the region's port complex, its largest generator of private sector jobs, from becoming hopelessly congested and obsolescent. Cleveland, Detroit, Philadelphia, and the other hard luck cases need to focus on trying to fix their schools, transportation systems, and economies. Phoenix needs to concern itself with generating jobs and opportunities for its soaring immigrant population. Let the glitzy restaurants and rock clubs take care of themselves.

Steps like these will require a new political consensus. Much of the current progressive agenda--with its anti-growth economic bias--does little to boost the competitive status of urban centers. Cities must return to a progressive focus on fixing their real problems--that is, the problems of the majority of the people who live there--not serving the interests of artists, hipsters, and their wealthy patrons. Right now school reform is often hostage to the power of teachers' unions. City budgets, which could be applied to improving economic infrastructure, are frequently bloated by, among other things, excessive public sector employment and overgenerous pensions. In the contest for the remaining public funds, the knitted interests of downtown property holders, arts foundations, sports promoters, and nightclub owners often overwhelm those of more conventional small businesses and family-oriented neighborhoods that could serve as havens for the middle class.

Personally, I think Kotkin needs to put less blame on unions, public employees, and hipsters, and more blame on the race-to-the-bottom dynamic in municipal politics. Cities are often very hesitant to raise taxes (or raise future taxes, by issuing bonds) out of fear that it will send jobs elsewhere. The exception to this rule is when the city thinks it has something special - e.g. professional sports or culture - that it simply cannot afford to lose.

The reason why many companies are moving to the suburbs and exurbs is because they have fund municipal politics there to be more flexible to their interests. Lurking beneath the surface of all of this, I am afraid, is the bigger issue of corporate power.

Change in Top Ten Percent Rule Unlikely

By Byron LaMasters

The Houston Chronicle reports:

Prospects for changes to the state's "top 10 percent" university admissions law dimmed Saturday as a Senate committee killed a House bill that would cap admissions under the law.

The Senate Education Committee voted 3-3 against House Bill 2330.

As passed by the House, the bill would have allowed a university to cap its mandatory admissions at 50 percent of the total freshman class.

Even before the committee vote was taken, however, the bill had been rewritten with language from a Senate bill that would not have capped admissions, but would have required high school students to take harder courses.

That language was from Senate Bill 333, which also died in a House committee Saturday as a deadline passed.

Something needs to be done about the ten percent rule. It was a reasonable short term solution, but a long term solution is needed. I guess the lege was too busy making same sex marriage super extra illegal than actually dealing with higher education issues.

Katie Posts on the Chris Bell Blog

By Byron LaMasters

BOR blogger Katie Naranjo has posted on the Chris Bell blog. Check it out, here. Her post gives instructions as to how to join the student network of Chris Bell supporters for those of you interested in getting involved.

You can read more about Chris Bell here.

Exile on Main Street

By Jim Dallas

A few days ago, Slate's Timothy Noah wrote an essay denouncing what he perceived to be the new happy-to-be-exiled Democratic Party:

What's shocking about this new Democratic enthusiasm for retreat is that it is being expressed not on narrow special-interest issues, but on broad issues affecting the entire Democratic constituency: regaining a Senate majority, redistributing Social Security benefits, democratizing Senate procedures. It might be argued that the Democrats are merely imitating the winning strategy the Republicans used to regain the House in 1994: Spurn the glad-handing incremental victories favored by Newt Gingrich's predecessor as House Republican leader, Bob Michel, and instead propagandize your way to political victory. But congressional Democrats differ from congressional Republicans in three crucial ways. First, the Republicans, in becoming obstructionists, didn't change their positions on the issues, as Democrats are doing. Second, the Democrats haven't been shut out for many decades, as the House Republicans had been when they announced they were fed up with accommodation. The Democrats' obstructionism comes off seeming petulant and unearned. Third, Democrats, unlike Republicans, actually want to achieve something. Governmental paralysis, practically by definition, is agreeable to conservatives, but it's anathema to liberals, at least in the long run. Or rather, it should be.

Frankly, I'm all for enjoying minority status, and I'm not convinced by Noah's attempts to distinguish the 1980s House GOP from the 2005 House Democrats. They seem to be distinctions without a difference, and he doesn't really explain why any of them are really relevant, besides recycling conventional wisdom and, dare I say, GOP talking points.

If Democrats appear clunky playing the role of the blowhard, it's probably because we're not particularly experienced at it. What's missing is the fact that, while the GOP establishment for years remained, well, establishmentarian, the grassroots never quite were, and there was always a cranky-conservative-movement wing of the Congressional caucuses. Even before Goldwater. The difference that matters, I think, is that Democrats aren't very smooth when it comes to watering the grassroots.

Moreover, I think Noah overlooks the many positive aspects of being a blowhard.

Paradoxically, is that presents opportunities to form new proactive coalitions. It's a proven fact that it's easier to unite people by declaring what you're against than by stating what you're for; by bringing strange bedfellows together, oppositionalism should serve as a catalyst for laying out a post-New Deal grand strategy.

Moreover, this presents us with a natural opportunity to ditch principles that aren't working and adopt ones that will. This might seem opportunist or at best philosophically pragmatic, but the thing about pragmatism is that, by definition, it works. When the overlying principle is "no," it makes it a lot easier to re-shuffle the ideological deck while nobody is looking.

If nothing else, minority status ought to force us to get back in touch with real people in real communities. Inevitably, the majority "goes native"; indeed, there's a strong case to be made the GOP majority became captives of institutional interests years ago.

Finally, the blowhard isolates himself from tomorrow's outrage at today's excesses. It's possible, of course, that the GOP really knows what they are doing, and, in fact, we will all look back and praise mightily their righteous words and deeds. That said, such an outcome is highly improbable.

I should note, I think, that all of these rationales are long-term rationales. Being a blowhard is not a means of attaining power in the short-term, because nobody likes a downer. Exile is defensible on one ground and one ground only - that at some point in the future, we're going to stop being in exile. That at some point in the future, we're going to break out of the cocoon of the present and become a beautiful butterfly.

I suppose I would share Noah's concern, then, if I thought that the Blue State blues were terminal; however, insofar as this is a phase we're working through, it can be a very beneficial experience.

Priscilla Owen Rated Worst Justice by the Houston Bar Association

By Byron LaMasters

The Houston Bar Association rated the six (all Republican) Texas Supreme Court Justices (along with many other judges) that have served on the court since July 31, 2004. The Houston Chronicle reports (via Kuff):

The poll, which is completed every two years, asked HBA members to rate judges "outstanding," "acceptable" or "poor" in seven categories, including following the law, demonstrating impartiality, paying attention in court and using attorneys' time efficiently. It also assigned them an overall rating. The poll included federal, state, county and municipal judges.

About 1,200 lawyers, 11 percent of the association's membership, responded to the poll. Most judges were not rated by every attorney participating in the poll because lawyers were asked only to consider judges they have worked with directly.

"It doesn't necessarily mean that a judge is good or bad," said Rocky Robinson, a civil attorney and HBA president. "It is an indication of the attorneys' perceptions of the judges' performance in those categories based on their experience in front of the judges." [...]

Supreme Court of Texas

Judge	Outstanding	Acceptable	Poor
Scott A. Brister (422)	36.9	20.7	42.4
Nathan L. Hecht (327)	40.3	17.4	42.3
Wallace B. Jefferson (270)	53.4	29.7	16.9
Harriet O'Neill (334)	55	30.5	14.5
Priscilla R. Owen (350)	39.5	15.2	45.3
Dale Wainwright (316)	48.7	25.7	25.7

Of the six Texas Supreme Court Justices rated, Priscilla Owen had the highest "poor" rating, and the second lowest "outstanding" rating. Furthermore, Owen has the largest negative difference between respondents ranking her "poor" over "outstanding" with 5.8% more "poor" ratings than "outstanding".

The results are even more telling when the details are examined:

SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS PRISCILLA R. OWEN

Number of Attorneys Rating This Judge: 350

Question	Outstanding	Acceptable	Poor
Is attentive to oral argument?	45.8	20.3	33.9
Interacts constructively with counsel during oral arguments?	42.6	19.5	37.9
Opinions demonstrate well reasoned, clearly - written disposition of the case based on proper application of the law to the record?	38.4	15.3	46.3
Is impartial and open-minded with respect to determining the legal issues?	34.6	16.6	48.8
Overall rating?	39.5	15.2	45.3

Are these ratings from a non-partisan organization of lawyers who have worked directly with Justice Owen reflective of someone who deserves a promotion? I don't think so...

More at Kuff.

HJR 6 Debate on the Senate Floor

By Byron LaMasters

Watch it live, here.

Update: In the Pink Texas reports that Madla switched sides to allow a vote to bring up the bill.

Update 1:50 PM: Rules are suspended by a 21-8 vote.

Update 2:26 PM: These debates sometimes get amusing. On floor amendement 8, Sen. Van de Putte proposed and withdrew a "some sex" amendment.

Update 2:28 PM: HJR 6 adopted by a 21-8 vote. The 21 votes were all Republicans except for Brimer who was absent along with Democratic Senators Armbrister, Lucio and Madla. The other 8 Democratic Senators voted against HRJ 6.

More: In the Pink Texas has some more on the HJR 6 Senate sponsor Todd Staples.

More: The amendment will be put to a statewide vote on November 8, 2005. BOR will keep you updated with the latest on the amendment and the NO on HJR 6 campaign.

And More: LGRL Statement:

A historically dangerous and discriminatory constitutional amendment is headed to Texas voters. The Anti-Gay Texas Marriage Amendment (HJR 6) passed the Texas Senate this afternoon. The amendment was approved by a vote of 21 to 8, narrowly meeting the two-thirds majority required.

The amendment has been cleared to appear on a statewide ballot this November. This would mark the first time in history that a minority group would be singled out in the constitution in order to be denied rights. Constitutions are historically treated as sacred documents, designed to preserve rights and ensure equality for all.

Randall Ellis, Executive Director of the Lesbian/Gay Rights Lobby of Texas, says the amendment is dangerous. "This amendment is potentially devastating to thousands of Texas families, gay and straight alike," Ellis said. "Domestic partnership benefits, powers of attorney, and even common law marriage will be called into question by this amendment. These are consequences that are supposedly unintended, according to the amendment's authors. But this is clearly a discriminatory act, designed to strike at our community at its fundamental level: our families. The Legislature is obviously willing to sacrifice all Texas families for this unjust agenda of intolerance and discrimination."

Marriage affords hundreds of legal rights, responsibilities and obligations, like the ability to visit a spouse in the hospital, social security benefits, second parent adoptions and many more. These are denied to thousands of loving, committed gay couples across Texas, many of them raising families of their own.

This amendment would, in effect, solidify LGBT Texans' status as second-class citizens.

Help a Democratic Local Candidate in Athens, TX!

By Andrew Dobbs

As Karl-T can tell you, local races matter. The election of his dad to the Fredericksburg City Council means the first toehold for Democrats in that part of the state in a long time. Now there is an opportunity to help Democrats turn the tide in a county that is progressively growing more Republican.

Athens, TX votes for a new mayor next weekend and the race features a Democrat versus a Republican. Randy Daniels is a life-long Democrat and a community leader who is set to start turning back recent Republican gains in Henderson County. Henderson County elected a Republican County Judge by less than 100 votes last year and electing Randy Daniels will go a long way to helping Democrats gain ground in East Texas.

If you are interested in helping elect a good Democrat, the Daniels campaign needs blockwalkers next weekend, May 28, from 9 or 10 in the morning until the polls close. If you can make it out to Athens and help in the race, please contact SDEC Committeeman Dr. Dennis Teal at (936)398-9411.

Let's win this one and start turning Texas blue!

Some Attention for BOR

By Vince Leibowitz

Though I haven't posted here as much as I would have liked over the past couple of months (can you believe I let work get in the way of blogging?), I did want to let everyone to know to "watch out," for the Fort Worth Star Telegram this weekend.

I received a call earlier this week from a reporter in the paper's Austin Bureau, asking me about a post I'd made here a while back on State Rep. Bob Griggs. It seems the paper is doing a "report card/profile" on Griggs, and it is expected to run Sunday or later depending upon when it was finished.

At any rate, hopefully summer will be a little bit slower time--the past couple of weeks I've been buried in Lexis/Nexus searches, the Code of Criminal Procedure (actually O'Conner's Criminal Codes Plus) and the various and sundry things one must do when one works for a law firm--and I should be back with my regular musings.

In the meantime, I think I remember something about Byron graduating today, which probably explains the lack of posting today. If, in fact Byron or anyone passed up a day of revelry and posted on the day of their college graduation, I'd be totally shocked.

So, congrats to Byron (and everyone else graduating from anywhere this weekend, for that matter).

Vince Leibowitz is County Chairman of the Democratic Party of Van Zandt County. He is a guest contributor to BOR and a contributor to the Political State Report. He may be reached at Vince_Leibowitz-at-bluebottle.com

NARAL Screws Self Over, Stabs Dems in the Back

By Andrew Dobbs

Well, it's not every day that you see Kos taking on a liberal activist group like NARAL, but he makes an excellent point in his post today.

Earlier this year it appeared that Rhode Island Congressman Jim Langevin (D) would be running for the US Senate. Langevin, one of Congress' few disabled members (he is a quadripeligic), was leading Rhode Island Republican Lincoln Chaffee by several points and looked to beat him in 2006, adding yet another D to the Senate. But Langevin had one problem-- he is a pro-life Democrat and Chaffee is a pro-abortion rights Republican. What to do? NARAL, the National Abortion Rights Action League, sprang into action and ran Langevin out of the race by getting a bunch of out-of-staters to start raising money for potential primary opponents. Langevin dropped out in favor of two pro-abortion rights Democrats-- Secretary of State Matt Brown and former Congressman Sheldon Whitehouse. Neither are doing as well as Langevin in the statewide polls, but NARAL seemed to get what it wanted, a Democratic nominee who would fight for access to abortion.

Now, as my one-time roommate Ezra Klein points out, NARAL has greeted this opportunity to knock off a Republican by endorsing Lincoln Chaffee for reelection. Chaffee is indeed pro-choice, one of the country's last prominent liberal Republicans, but he is a Republican no less. The first vote he cast this year was for Bill "James Dobson is My Homeboy" Frist as Senate Majority Leader. Langevin's first vote was for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker. It seems as though NARAL could realize that their causes are better served by ANYONE other than Chaffee, and now that they have two Democrats on their side in the race, why wouldn't they wait to support the eventual nominee? It is truly confounding.

As a Democrat, I am angered and as someone who is pro-life I am appalled. Jim Langevin would be a phenomenal Senator, as his record in the House attests to, and would join Bob Casey (assuming he beats Santorum) as a new and exciting pro-life leader in our caucus. While they are unlikely to turn our party pro-life, they would send a clear message to anti-abortion voters who agree with us on other issues that it is okay to vote for us-- we aren't beholden to any special interest. Now NARAL has not only demonstrated to anyone paying attention that our party is hostile to pro-life candidates, but has abandoned us in favor of a Fristian Republican. It's a lose-lose situation for Democrats.

For those who support access to abortion NARAL is still the nation's primary advocate for their cause, but it lost a bit of credibility today. It is time for us to realize that all the petty differences in the world are meaningless-- in a partisan age, partisan politics must be played. Here's hoping Langevin shows them up by reentering the race, winning the nomination and taking out Chaffee (or possibly the right-winger that beats Chaffee in the primary). We need him in the US Senate.

HJR 6 Senate Hearings

By Byron LaMasters

Our pink friends, In the Pink Texas and Pink Dome are liveblogging the HJR 6 Senate (gay marriage amendment) hearing.

Earlier today, however, there was good news for opponents of the amendment. The Austin American Statesman legislature blog reports:

An effort to add a ban gay marriage to the Texas Constitution has met resistance from a bloc of state senators, but Republican Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst said today he is trying to win passage for the proposal.

Dewhurst said 11 senators have sent him a letter saying they’ll block the measure. That’s enough to stop it from coming to the Senate floor because a proposal needs votes from 21 of the 31 senators to come up for debate. Because the resolution calls for a change in the constitution, which also takes 21 of 31, it’s also enough to stop the bill.

“We have a letter from 11 senators asking that HJR 6 not be brought up,” he said. “At the same time I have talked to several of the senators, and I believe that we probably will have the votes to suspend.”

“Suspend” is Senatespeak for bringing a bill to the floor. No promises yet about the bill passing.

The State Affairs Committee is scheduled to hold a hearing on the measure this afternoon. The House passed the measure several weeks ago.

Passing the ban out of the Senate and helping it find its way to a public ballot this fall would be a key victory for Dewhurst among the social conservatives who vote in the Republican primary.

My guess is that the 11 senators are all senate Democrats sans Armbrister. I'll update when I know for sure.

Perry vs. World Grows Up

By Byron LaMasters

Congrats to Rick Perry vs. the World from graduating from blogspot and joining the big kids club (no offense to Atrios) with their own domain.

Blogging this Week

By Byron LaMasters

I just wanted to briefly apologize for the minimal amount of posts this week. I'm busy graduating, and I'll be busy with family obligations over the next several days. Karl-Thomas is struggling with his antiquated dial-up connection in Fredericksburg, and I assume that Jim is either tackling or recovering from law school finals. As for Andrew... I don't know what his excuse is...

KBH Offered Senate Leadership Position?

By Byron LaMasters

The Houston Chronicle speculates:

The guessing game over U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison's possible run for Texas governor took a new twist Tuesday when a high-ranking Republican colleague said she could get a big promotion if she stayed in the Senate.

Hutchison, however, has promised that her six-year Senate term, which ends with 2006, will be her last.

She has been openly considering running instead against Gov. Rick Perry in 2006.

Tuesday's unexpected comments came from Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, whom Hutchison had invited to address a women's leadership conference she hosted in a Washington hotel.

McConnell said Hutchison likely would be offered the Senate GOP's No. 3 spot, chair of the Senate Republican Conference, a position now held by Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, if she remains in Washington.

These KBH rumors are getting a bit silly. What's next? Will she be offered a spot on the 2008 Presidential ticket if she does not run for governor?

More at Off the Kuff and Rick Perry vs. the World.

Candy Marcum Withdraws her Endorsement of Kathy Ingle

By Byron LaMasters

Earlier this week, I reported that Dallas City Council District 14 candidate Kathy Ingle (R) is a Republican activist that has donated $7775 to Republican candidates and committees in the past two years alone. Ingle is in a run-off election against Angela Hunt (D). The third place finisher in the race, Candy Marcum (D) endosed Ingle when she conceded. Today, Marcum sent out an email retracting her endorsement of Ingle:

Endorsement withdrawl of Kathy Ingle for District 14 City Council

Dear Friends, Neighbors and Supporters,

As some of you are aware, there have been a flurry of e-mails having to do with the runoff race for Dallas City Council District 14 and my endorsement of Kathy Ingle. I thought for the sake of open, honest and clear communication, I would write to you about the series of events leading up to the withdrawal of my endorsement of Kathy Ingle's candidacy.

The week after the election, I met with Kathy Ingle and went over the issues that were important to me in order to support her candidacy. These mainly had to do with her stance on GLBT issues. She assured me that she was a person who would not only support the non-discrimination ordinances currently in place in Dallas, but would also advocate for shoring up a loop hole in the housing ordinance. Never in that discussion was it revealed how she had voted on the DART non-discrimination policy 10 years ago.

When it came to my attention Monday, May 16th at 10:00pm by a good friend that Kathy had voted against including sexual orientation in DART's non-discrimination policy, I immediately made the decision to withdraw my endorsement for her candidacy for City Council. As you know, my life's work has been about fighting and advocating for equality for the GLBT community. I cannot and will not support someone who in any way deters my community from that goal.

So, dear friends, many of you have contacted me asking for clarification about this flurry of contradicting e-mails. I hope this helps with your confusion. At this time, I am not endorsing anyone for City Council District 14. My favorite candidate did not make the runoff! I am now in a neutral position where it comes to endorsing.

I encourage those of you who live in District 14 to vote for the candidate of your choice. Early voting has started today and Election Day is Saturday, June 4th.

Again, thank you for all your support and love. As generous as you have been with me, let me tell you I feel that 10 times more back to you!!

Love and kisses...

Candy

Parental Consent Bill Passes State Senate

By Byron LaMasters

Just when we thought it was dead, the parental consent bill has passed both the House and Senate in the past couple of days. This afternoon, it passed the Senate by a vote of 24-5:

Parents would have to consent before their young daughters could have an abortion under legislation approved Wednesday in the Senate.

Current law requires girls under 18 to notify their parents before having an abortion. If a girl can prove informing her parents would result in abuse, a judge can bypass the notification.

This bill would require doctors to get consent from the parent of a girl under 18 before they could perform an abortion.

The House gave final approval to an abortion consent bill Tuesday. The House bill also prohibits abortions for women who have carried a child for more than 26 weeks, unless having the baby would jeopardize the woman's life or the baby had serious brain damage.

According to the Texas Department of State Health Services, 3,499 abortions were performed on girls younger than 18 in Texas in 2002, the most recent year for which such data is available.

The Senate bill was approved on a 24-5 vote, with little debate.

More on HD 143

By Byron LaMasters

Marc Campos will be working for another candidate - Laura Salinas. Meanwhile, Kuff brings news that a stealth Republican candidate may run as a Democrat in the district. I posted yesterday on another Democratic candidate, Ana Hernandez.

I see a pattern, do you?

By Jim Dallas

First Tom DeLay criticizing Justice Kennedy for doing research on the Internet ("that's outrageous!"). Now, Bob Novak criticizing NARAL lobbyists for searching public records (from Pandagon).

(To be sure, CNET argues DeLay might have (operative word "might") had a point; although I disagree -- judges do conduct sua sponte investigations often enough for lawyers to invent the term sua sponte and law students to know what sua sponte means. I'd criticize a judge for doing bad research (ala Pierre Salinger), not for doing research.)

I'm a bit torn on this issue, so let me elaborate. Normally us liberal types are for individual privacy. When you go and compile information on people without their permission, that makes us liberal types cranky.

But I, personally, would note, that once you've compiled the data, the worst thing that you can do is to hog it for yourself. David Brin, who normally writes science fiction, wrote a book a few years back making this argument - that it's better to have transparency.

People who go ape about search engines are not trying to defend privacy. They are trying to keep you from getting your hands on information that exists and someone else would otherwise hoard - and hoarding for their benefit, NOT for yours. Information not only "wants" to be free, it must if we are to have a free and accountable society.

Smokin'

By Jim Dallas

I've not always had the highest opinion of CounterPunch, since they're a tad on the nutty side sometimes (then again, aren't we all?).

Still, I didn't expect they'd run a fairly good article reviewing restaraunts in Lockhart, the barbecue capital of Texas.

I've always wanted to stop in Lockhart on the way from Austin to Houston, but have always been deterred by time or lack of money.

Die, Nazi Spam, Die!

By Jim Dallas

I'm moderately frustrated by spam for herbal viagra and free porn. I'd probably be slightly frustrated by spam selling world peace and universal harmony (now only $19.95).

But German hate spam, apparently the product of a virus, has assaulted my gmail account, and it pisses me off in ways I didn't even know I could be pissed off.

GOP Major Donor and Activist Kathy Ingle Seeks Dallas City Council District 14 Seat in Run-off

By Byron LaMasters

On June 4th, Dallas voters will vote in several run-off races for city council. In District 2, voters will choose between a transsexual woman, Monica Barros-Greene, and a longtime Democratic activist, Pauline Medrano for the seat of the term-limited John Loza. In District 8, former councilman Al Lipscomb will face off against incumbent James Fantroy. In district 12, Tony Fleo and Ron Natinsky will fight for the seat of term-limited Sandy Greyson. And in District 14, Angela Hunt and Kathy Ingle will face off for the seat of term-limited Veletta Lill. District maps available here.

While all city elections are non-partisan, many candidates have an obvious partisan agenda. Kathy Ingle is one of them. In the past two years, Ingle has donated $7,775 to Republican candidates and causes:

Results:

12 records found in 0.0469 seconds.

Search Criteria:
Donor name: ingle, kathy
Donor State: TX
Cycle(s) selected: 2006, 2004 Contributor

Total for this search: $7,775

Do District 14 voters want a Republican activist to be their representative on the Dallas City Council? Ingle sought the endorsement of the Dallas Stonewall Democrats, and at their meeting she stated that she disapproved of the tactics of Tom DeLay and thought that he was an embarrassment for her party. Why then, has Ingle donated to the National Republican Congressional Committee and the Texas Republican Congressional Committee in the past two years? Why then has she donated to Kenny Marchant and Pete Sessions - two of Tom DeLay's top congressional cronies?

After initially endorsing Candy Marcum, the Dallas County Young Democrats have endorsed Democrat Angela Hunt:

At our May 10 meeting, the Dallas County Young Democrats voted unanimously to endorse Angela Hunt in her run off election for Place 14 on the Dallas City Council. Angela is a longtime Democratic activist and a good friend of our organization. We encourage everyone in her district to support her in the June 4 election.

The incumbent, Veletta Lill has also endorsed Hunt. However, Candy Marcum endorsed Kathy Ingle. Rumors have circulated that Ingle and Marcum had a deal that the third place finisher would endorse the other in the run-off against Hunt. Regardless, I hope that Dallas voters reject Republican activist Kathy Ingle for the Dallas City Council. I would urge District 14 voters to vote for Angela Hunt. Not only is she a great Democrat, but she has a blog.

You can donate to Angela Hunt here.

Ambassador Hutchison?

By Byron LaMasters

Another week... another rumor. The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports:

It may not have much basis in fact, but the latest rumor about U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison has Austin buzzing again.

It has Hutchison, a Dallas Republican reportedly considering a bid for Texas governor, getting tapped by President Bush as U.S. ambassador to the Court of St. James's, the plum United Kingdom position now vacant.

That would clear a major hurdle to Gov. Rick Perry's re-election and open up the coveted Senate nomination for U.S. Rep. Henry Bonilla, R-San Antonio, or Republican Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst.

Hutchison spokesman Chris Paulitz dismissed the rumors.

"She's never been offered an ambassadorship," he said.

The U.S. ambassador's London residence is one of the most luxurious in the U.S. Foreign Service. Winfield House, a gift to the United States by heiress Barbara Hutton, is an antique-filled mansion on 12 1/2 acres in Regent's Park.

Hutchison might want to consider it.

If Kay Bailey Hutchison wants to spend more time at home in order to see more of her family, London is in the wrong direction.

Ana Hernandez to Run for the Seat of Joe Moreno

By Byron LaMasters

It's tough to think about how the special election for Joe Moreno's seat will play out, but it is a safe Democratic district, and I hope that a progressive Democrat will continue Joe Moreno's legacy. One candidate, supported by State Rep. Jessica Farrar (D-Houston) is Ana Hernandez.

Here is an email forwarded to me by a labor leader:

Democrat State Representative Jessica Farrar comes to Jacinto City, in celebration of Cinco de Mayo and introduces Ana Hernandez, the former Legislative Aide of the late Joe Moreno and candidate to fill his unexpired term.

Representative Farrar announces to the celebrating participants and tearful, but joyful Moreno supporters, the candidacy of Joe's former aide, Ana Hernandez, to seek the District 143 seat to continue Moreno's legacy and serve out his term.

Ana Hernandez, after serving two Legislative Sessions with Representative Farrar and then loyally serving Representative Moreno, completed her studies at the University of Texas with Joe'support and now having passed the State Bar Exam is sufficiently experienced and educated in dealing with Legislative affairs.

Farrar said many of Joe's close friends knew of his grooming Ana's for future Elected Legislative Service.

The speculation is Governor Perry will take the necessary action to bring about an election possibly in September to fill the vacant seat.

It is my prayer that Democrats will unite and rally to make certain of my late friend Joe Moreno's desire to see his Aide, Ana Hernandez, become an elected Official.

For those of us who loved Joe, what a great tribute each of us can make to him by helping to elect one of his former Aides to serve out his term.

Respectfully,
Allan R. Jamail

COPE Chairman / Political Education Committee / Organizer

Pipefitters Local Union 211
2535 Galveston Rd. Houston, Texas 77017-1999

Cheerleaders to remain Bootylicious

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

News 8 Austin reports that Rep. Al Edwards (D-Can't Handle It) Bill to ban sexually suggestive high school routines has dead ended in the Senate.

Sen. Florence Shapiro, R-Plano, said her education committee has more important things to consider.

Rep. Al Edwards, D-Houston, had won approval of his bill in the House. He said sexually suggestive routines in high schools are distractions that result in pregnancies, dropouts and the contraction of AIDS and herpes.

Shapiro said standards should be decided by parents and school districts.

Edwards acknowledged that his measure was probably dead for this legislative session, but he vowed to bring it up again.

I'm glad that the Education Committee has more important things to do. Apparently the Hate Affairs Committee does not.

HJR 6 Lives Again

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

WHAT: Senate State Affairs Committee hearing to receive public testimony on House Joint Resolution 6, the anti-gay Texas Marriage Amendment. This is the only occassion where public testimony is invited by the Texas Senate. The Senate suspended all normal notification rules and posted the hearing on Saturday night in an attempt to catch the LGBT community off guard.

WHO: The Texas Senate Committee on State Affairs
WHERE: The Texas Senate Chamber, room 2E.8. This is the Senate Floor.
WHEN: Monday, May 16, at 8:30am. The hearing will run until the full Senate convenes at 11:00am. The hearing may resume after the full Senate completes its business for the day.

1. Come to the Senate Chamber at 8:30am Monday and Sign a Witness Affirmation Form. There is absolutely NO EXCUSE for Austinites not to come to the Capitol and fill out a Witness Affirmation Form against HJR 6. It's incredibly powerful and it takes 5 minutes to fill out.

2. You can show up at the hearing on Monday morning to sign in against this devisive amendment- Texas Senate Chamber, room 2E.8 starting at 8:30 AM.

3. Fax the Senate using this feature here.

4. Call the members of the Senate State Affiars Committee now and leave a message. Sen. Todd Staples is the Senate Sponsor.

Sen. Duncan, Robert (R-28) (Chair)
3E.12 Capitol Building
512-463-0128 or 800-322-9538

Sen. Williams, Thomas (R-4) (Vice Chair)
GE.7 Capitol Building
512-463-0104

Sen. Armbrister, Kenneth (D-18)
1E.14 Capitol Building
512-463-0118

Sen. Ellis, Rodney (D-13)
3E.6 Capitol Building
512-463-0113

Sen. Fraser, Troy (R-24)
1E.15 Capitol Building
512-463-0124

Sen. Harris, Chris (R-9)
3S.5 Capitol Building
512-463-0109

Sen. Jackson, Mike (R-11)
E1.806 Capitol Extension
512-463-0111

Sen. Lucio, Eduardo (D-27)
1E.5 Capitol Building
512-463-0127 / 1-800-394-0127

Sen. Madla, Frank (D-19)
E1.610 Capitol Extension
512-463-0119

This information was forwarded to me, if you have updates or corrections please leave a comment.

Quick Facts

The Texas Marriage Amendment hurts Texas families. It would deny thousands of families access to healthcare, fair inheritance and survivor rights, and the ability to make life-saving medical decisions for loved ones.

Our Constitution should be used to protect people, not hurt them. But that is just what the Texas Marriage Amendment would do. Our Constitution is for protecting our most basic and important rights. It should never be used to settle partisan, religious or ideological disputes. There is no question that many Texans disagree about marriage for gay and lesbian couples, but those disagreements do not belong in our Constitution.

Changing the Constitution is never simple. There are over 1000 protections, rights and responsibilities that go along with civil marriage. Many, like immigration rights and veterans death benefits, cannot be covered by contracts or legal planning. The Texas Marriage Amendment would permanently deny access to each of these family protections to gay and lesbian couples and their families.

This bill DOES NOT "reinforce" heterosexual marriages. The typical reason legislators give for supporting this legislation is that it reinforces traditional marriages. However, they have provided no reasoning to support the idea that barring same-sex marriages in any way contributes positively to heterosexual marriages, or that recognition of same-sex marriages threatens existing opposite-sex marriages. It seems the real motivation behind such legislation is homophobia.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS(FAQ)

Q: I don't support gay marriage/ Marriage is between man & woman/ I'm not sure about gay marriage.
A: Many people have just begun to think about how they feel about the issue of marriage for gay and lesbian couples, but changing the Constitution is not the way to settle the debate over marriage, particularly when it means real people would get hurt. We may disagree or be unsure about marriage for gay and lesbian couples, but we can all agree that our Constitution is no place for unequal treatment for one group of our citizens. You do not have to approve of marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples to vote no.

Q: Will my church have to perform gay weddings if the Texas Marriage Amendment is defeated?
A: As Americans, we believe in the separation of church and state. No church or religion has ever been required to perform a ceremony or sacrament outside its tradition. Every faith has different standards for who they will marry, and a No vote will not change this in any way.

Q: If we don't draw the line now, where and when will we draw it? What will we allow next?
A: A No vote does not change marriage in Texas. Marriage will remain a committed relationship between two unrelated, otherwise-unmarried adults, who agree to share love, commitment and responsibility.

Q: I think we should leave marriage alone and just push for civil unions.
A: Civil unions, even at their best, do not provide the same protections as marriage. And we can't assume the Legislature will ever pass civil unions. If you support extending any rights to gay and lesbian couples, you should know that this amendment could foreclose any future hope for civil unions too. We shouldn't put unequal treatment of gays and lesbians into our Constitution, especially without any assurance that their rights will be protected by future legislation.

Q: Can't gays and lesbians get everything they need from legal contracts?
A: No. There is no truth to the claim that gay and lesbian Texans can get all of the benefits and protections of marriage from contracts. There are some cases when legal contracts have been effective at protecting families in times of crisis, but even the most ironclad documents don't work in every case. Gay and lesbian Texans should not be treated unequally by having to seek out costly and complicated legal protections for their families.

Q: Gay people can't marry in Texas now, so if this passes it doesn't really change anything right?
A: A Yes vote on the Texas Marriage Amendment does change the Texas Constitution-both the letter of the Constitution and the spirit of the Constitution-to say that it is OK to treat gay and lesbian Texans unequally. That is a marked departure from the way our Constitution is now. Voting yes does nothing to protect families or marriage in Texas. What it does do is hurt real Texas families by denying gay and lesbian Texans access to important family protections like health care, inheritance rights and the ability to make life-saving medical decisions.

Q: Don't we need to put this in the Constitution to prevent activist judges from making gay marriage legal?
A: Changing the Constitution to treat Texans unequally isn't the best way to resolve the debate on this issue. When an issue divides Texans, as this one does, it's better to take the time to examine all the consequences, rather than act rashly in a way that hurts people. Voting No on the Texas Marriage Amendment will not make marriage for gay and lesbian couples legal, it will only keep unequal treatment out of the Constitution.

Nebraska Gay Marriage Amendment Overturned

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

It's nice to see that the US Constitution still has some power.

Link: A federal judge on Thursday struck down Nebraska's anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment, which also banned recognition of gay domestic partnerships and civil unions.

"The court finds [the Nebraska constitutional amendment] is a denial of access to one of our most fundamental sources of protection, the government," Judge Joseph F. Bataillon wrote in his decision.

"Such broad exclusion from an almost limitless number of transactions and endeavors that constitute ordinary civil life in a free society is itself a denial of equal protections in the literal sense."

The Texas version is stalled in the Senate as it has no sponsor yet. And in any case, the Texas version is just as poorly worded (if not worse, possibly knocking out our Commen Law marriage system). Hopefully this won't be the last of these amendements to be killed off.

Military Musical Chairs

By Jim Dallas

An old friend brings to my attention that the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) committee has made its recommendations about which bases to close. Looks like the Navy is taking the biggest hit, particularly in Texas.

Ft. Sam Houston in San Antonio is getting bigger, as is Ft. Bliss.

Texas stands to net 9,000 jobs overall; the closures in Corpus Christi and in Ralph Hall's district being offset by units being shifted from other states.

UPDATE: Still, a net gain in jobs does not make up for the many communities which are going to be sorely disrupted by the fifteen base closures scheduled for Texas. The Chris Bell campaign put out a PR to that effect:

The Pentagon today recommended closing a long list of military bases in Texas against zero in Oklahoma, bringing up yet another example of Rick Perry’s failed leadership.

“Texas and Oklahoma have two Republican senators and a congressional delegation dominated by Republicans. What does Oklahoma have that Texas doesn’t have? A Democratic Governor. Maybe we should get one of those,” said Jason Stanford, spokesman for the Chris Bell for Governor Exploratory Committee.

I'm not sure comparing the military presence in Texas to the military presence in Oklahoma is quite fair, but certainly what we got ain't the product of any great success on the part of Governor Perry. On the other hand, the 147th TANG is staying at Ellington Field, and I know Senator Hutchison's been fighting pretty hard for that.

Update Firefox

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Just to let y'all know, Firefox has released an update to 1.0.4 now. If you havn't yet, update your browsers. If you havn't made the switch from Explorer (or god forbid, Netscape) switch to Firefox. I know personally that Byron and I (and many of the Student Government and University Democrats leaders on campus) are Firefox fans with its tabbed browsing and all of the great plugins that can be coupled with it.

Texas Democratic Party: $6,300

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

I was reading this article today (sub. req.) about the state of the Texas Democratic Party a year after Ardmore and ran across this interesting line...

"Some days it's horrible. Some days you don't want to get up and come over here," said Houston Rep. Garnett Coleman, who had helped lead the opposition. "But you know, public service is not for just when you win."

For the Democratic Party, the losses have proved costly.

Its most recent filing with the Texas Ethics Commission shows it has just $6,300 on hand. The Republican Party, by contrast, had $139,000.

It's sad that even I have more money than the state party and I'm a college student without a job. I know that the Texas HDCC is having a fundraiser in couple weeks, but in the meantime you can always donate online to the state party. I'll even kick in a few bucks once I get some credit cleared.

Making Homes

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

So, have you ever spent time at the Homemakers for America website? Sad to say, this place is serious. And even though I would really love to get a "Women of Freedom" candle, I'm more interested in their poll they have running, "Does NOW (National Organization of Women) speak for you?"

Results are at 4% yes. You know you want to vote in it (middle left side). That would be near the Fox News petition and CitizenUSA newspaper info. Oh boy.

Update: Looks like they pulled the poll, and now are asking if Hillary would make a suitable President. Yes, naturally, so go vote.

Nuclear Text Messages

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

So, we keep waiting to know when the Senate goes Nuclear. I'm on the edge of my seat (though maybe I should hide under it to protect me from the fallout).

Sign up with the People for the American Way's text message alert, which will also give you the number of the Senate Offiers to call as soon as the trigger is pulled. That way you can be part of the instant response while the vote is open.

DeLay and Frist: Out of Control

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

It's not often that I pay much attention to DSCC emails, but today's gave noticed to a really powerful ad they've developed. Watch and donate here. I'm impressed to say the least, about ethics of all issues. Can we say campaign theme '06?

Chris Bell Liveblog

By Byron LaMasters

I missed the Chris Bell conference call tonight, but The Agonist has a liveblog of the call. Charles Kuffner set up the call, and I planned to attend, but catching up with sleep was more of a priority. I've also already had several opportunities to speak with Chris Bell over the past months, and whether he wins the Democratic nomination or not, I commend him for criss-crossing the state so far ahead of the campaign with a Democratic message (and for taking on Tom DeLay).

Update: Nate also liveblogged the call. Corked Bats blogged Chris Bell in Dallas, and Kuff had a recap.

Parental Consent Bill Tabled

By Byron LaMasters

Today was a rare good day in the Texas House for supporters of a woman's right to choose. House Democrats successfully stalled HB 1212 past the deadline for filing new bills with two sustained Points of Order this week. The Houston Chronicle reports:

House bill that would have required girls younger than 18 to get consent from one of their parents before having an abortion died Thursday because of a technical error.

Rep. Phil King, R-Weatherford, said he was disappointed his bill failed again this session. It failed when he filed it in 1999, 2001 and 2003. [...]

Current Texas law requires that parents of a minor be notified before their daughter has an abortion. A judge, however, can allow bypass of the notification.

Under King's bill, girls who did not want to involve their parents for fear of abuse or did not have parents who could give consent would have been able to seek judicial bypass. [..]

The bill also would have increased the evidence necessary to bypass parental involvement. Rather than just proving that abuse would be likely, as current law requires, girls would have to prove they would certainly be in harm's way.

Essentially, the King bill would increase the burden of proof on the victim of child abuse, rape, incest, etc. I thought that Republicans were for victim's rights - that is unless it relates to abortion.

Update: Kuff also brings the good news of the defeat of another bad bill - HB 1167.

Done

By Byron LaMasters

I just finished the last exam of my last course of my last semester for my undergraduate degree. It's a weird feeling. I'll be graduating next Friday.

Take the Pew Test

By Byron LaMasters

Take it, here. They call me a liberal. Shocker. What are you?

Team Musselman

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

You have no idea how happy this makes me. From the Fredericksburg Standard-Radio Post today.

A newcomer to Fredericksburg politics garnered the highest number of votes in Saturday's Fredericksburg City Council race, earning one of two positions up for grabs in this year's election.

Tom Musselman, a social studies teacher at Fredericksburg High School, received 625 votes, while incumbent councilman and local retail merchant Tim Dooley is returning to the board by gathering the second highest number of ballots at 551. Two other candidates in the race -- political newcomer Ronnie Stotz and former councilman Sharon Bailey -- collected 450 and 416 votes, respectively, in their losing efforts.

Figures show that slightly more than 18 percent of the eligible registered voters in Fredericksburg participated in the election (1,232 out of 6,791). Of those 1,232 voters, more than half (626) cast their ballots prior to the actual election day of May 7.

Personal appearance voting, held through May 3 and conducted at City Hall, drew 610 citizens, while 16 voted via mail-in ballots.

Just as in last fall's elections here in Austin, turnout was shifted to the early vote like never before because of the efforts of the campaigns encouraging people to do so, which made the final turnout come in at the conservative end of my estimate, 1,200. Still, a 50% increase in voter turnout from the last elections, I'm proud.

Mark one down for Team Musselman. And that tie? That's the one I bought him at the UN in New York City a few summers back when I was at the Global Young Leaders Conference.

Kuffner Interviews Lampson

By Byron LaMasters

As promised, Charles Kuffner has a Q&A with Nick Lampson available for you to read. Lampson elaborates on his district 22 roots, notes that he does not want Tom DeLay to be the focus of the race, and plans to raise $4-5 Million.

Kimberly thinks that Lampson is making a mistake for not making Tom DeLay the center of his campaign. I don't necessary see it to be a problem. There will be all sorts of outside forces (notably, the media) and organizations (DCCC, Democratic 527s, etc.) that will be taking on Tom DeLay. Lampson has to prove his roots in the 22nd district, and his viability as a candidate.

Sessions to support Bonilla for Senate?

By Byron LaMasters

D Magazine has the rumor:

Political pundits are guessing how the dominoes will fall if Kay Bailey decides to take on Rick Perry in '06. One theory had Pete Sessions running for her spot--in turn freeing up an open House seat for an up-and-comer (like, say, Dan Branch).

But a Dallas insider says that Sessions has set his sights on another position: chair of the NRCC, which is an internal position elected by the House Republican Conference. (Interestingly enough, Martin Frost held the comparable post for the Democrats in the mid-nineties, during the Republican takeover of the House.) That means Sessions is staying put.

According to our source, Sessions has even promised to support Henry Bonilla if he runs for Hutchison's seat.

Pete Sessions would be smart not to run for U.S. Senate. After all he ran about 8-9% points behind the average Republican index in 2004. Democrats, including myself would have all sorts of fun with him if he were to be the GOP nominee.

Rick Perry Has New Polling Numbers!

By Andrew Dobbs

And they ain't too good. Survey USA did a "ranking the governors" poll (hat tip Political Wire), where Rick Perry languished in 38th place, with numbers that look like this:

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Rick Perry is doing as governor?

38% Approve
48% Disapprove
14% Not Sure

Those are some ugly numbers. You'd think he's going to lose in the primary, right? Wrong. The only group of Texans he leads in are Republicans. Among his party he gets great numbers-- 57% approve, 33% disapprove and 10% aren't sure. Those are high enough to hand him the nomination over Kay Bailey "Baby Killer" Hutchison (as I'm sure she'll come to be known) in 2006. But Democrats are against him 23-63 (and I'm sure we can convince the other 23%), Independents are against him 30-53, and "Don't Knows" are against him 19-35. The best he does against any ethnic group is 44-44 among White people. He loses big in every age group and even males are at 40 approve, 49 disapprove. When even White males are against you and you are a Republican, you are in trouble. Not enough to lose the primary, of course, but more than enough to lose the election.

Keep your hopes up everyone, and get ready for a real battle. This could be the most important election for Texas in 20 years.

Conservatives Finally Coming Around on Marijuana Decriminalization?

By Andrew Dobbs

Today I was doing my usual blog check, which includes a conservative source in the National Review, and I came across a fascinating headline. The story, by confirmed right-wing moralist Rich Lowry, was linked under "The Government is Waging a War on Pot." Click through and the subtitle says "Wrong drug, wrong war." I heartily agree.

Here's some choice quotes from the story:

It used to be that drug warriors denied that marijuana was much of a focus for them, because they understandably liked people to think they were cracking down on genuinely dangerous, highly addictive drugs. No more. We are waging a war on pot, a substance less addictive and harmful than tobacco and alcohol, which presumably friends of Walters enjoy all the time with no fear of being forced to make a court appearance.

According to a new report by the Sentencing Project, in a trend Walters heartily supports, annual drug arrests increased by 450,000 from 1990 to 2002. Marijuana arrests accounted for 82 percent of the growth, and 79 percent of that was for marijuana possession alone. Marijuana arrests are now nearly half of all the 1.5 million annual drug arrests. Marijuana-trafficking arrests actually declined as a proportion of all drug arrests during this period, while the proportion of possession arrests increased by two-thirds.

Has the use of other drugs declined, prompting the focus on marijuana? No. According to the Sentencing Project: "There is no indication from national drug-survey data that a dramatic decrease in the use of other drugs led to law-enforcement agencies shifting resources to marijuana. Indeed, there was a slight increase in the use of all illicit drugs by adult users between 1992 and 2001. Over that same period, emergency-room admissions for heroin continued to increase." Drug warriors simply think it's a good thing in and of itself to arrest marijuana smokers. (...)

As Allen F. St. Pierre, executive director of the pro-decriminalization group NORML, puts it, "Increased arrest rates are not associated with reduced marijuana use, reduced marijuana availability, a reduction in the number of new users, reduced treatment admissions, reduced emergency-room mentions, any reduction in marijuana potency, or any increases in the price of marijuana." Besides that, the war on marijuana is a smash success.

Marijuana is not harmless, and its use should be discouraged, but in the same way, say, smoking a pack of cigarettes a day should be discouraged. The criminal-justice system should stay out of it. Twelve states have decriminalized marijuana to varying degrees, fining instead of arresting people for possessing small amounts. They recognize that — as the authors of a new study for the conservative American Enterprise Institute argue — "the case for imposing criminal sanctions for possession of small amounts of marijuana is weak."

Notice that none other than the Lynne Cheney/Newt Gingrich/Conservative think tank AEI is now on the side of decriminalization. Here's a quote from the abstract of the aforementioned study:

Boyum and Reuter conclude that America’s drug policy should be reoriented in several ways to be more effective. Enforcement should focus on reducing drug-related problems, such as violence associated with drug markets, rather than on locking up large numbers of low-level dealers. Treatment services for heavy users, particularly methadone and other opiate maintenance therapies, need more money and fewer regulations. And programs that coerce convicted drug addicts to enter treatment and maintain abstinence as a condition of continued freedom should be expanded.

Less jail? More treatment? Access to methadone? Jeez, what kind of conservatives are these guys? They sound like a warmed over Ralph Nader. The fact of the matter is that decriminalization is an issue that conservatives, liberals and most importantly libertarians can really come together on. Conservatives and libertarians should be aghast at government involvement in private, relatively harmless activity (marijuana is the fourth most commonly used drug in America-- right behind caffine, alcohol and nicotine. Alcohol kills 100,000 people a year, nicotine 400,000. Marijuana kills maybe a dozen). Liberals should stand against the economic destruction that criminialization wreaks on minority and poor communities.

It is time for serious thinkers to agree that the prohibition of marijuana and the persecution of its casual users is a waste of our time, our money and our dignity. Even Texas has a decriminalization bill up this year (one ounce or less of marijana would now be a Class C misdemeanor-- like a traffic fine), and the bill passed out of committee unanimously. Now that we crazy hippie types that have supported decriminalization for years have some Republican allies, who knows what can happen?

Well boys, I reckon this is it -- nukyular combat, toe to toe with the GOP

By Jim Dallas

Word is that Frist is threatening to go nuclear over Patricia Owen this week.

I agree with PandaJesse. Texas Supreme Patricia Owen is really not all that bad compared to, say, California Supreme Janice Rogers Brown. (That's not an endorsement, just a comparison.) I'd almost reckon that Frist's boastings about Judge Owen are almost an intelligent form of bluffing to encourage Senate Democrats to make the compromise.

Though it looks like Fightin' Harry Reid is in no mood to compromise. "Bring it on."

Update: It takes a special class of "bad" to be unfavorably compared to a judge Alberto Gonzales accused of "unconscionable judicial activism." I just cannot stand the thought of Janice Rogers Brown being a federal judge. Whereas Judge Owen has very strong opinions about what the law ought to be, Judge Brown seems to have extremely bizarre interpretations of twentieth century history (or in the words of Kieran Healey, " a heady and unstable mix of libertarian obiter dicta, Randian bromides, culture-war cliches and, um, Procol Harum lyrics. No, really.").

As Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, we're all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts. That's where I draw the line between the two nominees.

This Headline Cannot Contain My Boiling Rage

By Jim Dallas

Front page, H-Chron, today:

Despite offering limited tax relief for some of the poorest people, a Senate tax overhaul would raise taxes for most Texans, at least initially, legislative analysts reported Monday.

Only households with incomes of more than $140,853 a year would realize a net tax cut — an average of 1.52 percent — under the swap of higher state taxes for lower school property taxes in fiscal year 2007, when the trade-off is fully in place.

A tax bill approved earlier by the House also is weighted in favor of the wealthiest Texans, although the two plans differ significantly in details...

All other income categories would get a net tax increase. Overall, that would mean a tax increase for 80 percent of Texas families, said the Center for Public Policy Priorities, which advocates for middle- and low-income people.

Sen. Steve Ogden (R-Bryan) tries to spin this as the result of cigarette taxes; apparently working families spend more of their income on ciggies than the wealthy. That's probably true - a pack-a-day habit is a pack-a-day habit, regardless of whether you're making $20,000 a year or $200,000.

Of course, sin taxes, like all consumption taxes, tend to be regressive in this way (you know, because a three-meal-a-day habit is a three-meal-a-day habit regardless of income). Moreover, sin taxes tend to fall on those pesky things that the powerful folks in the Lege simply don't approve of. Did the bill drafters sincerely believe that cutting slightly regressive property taxes and shifting the burden to highly regressive consumption taxes would not have this sort of distributional impact?

Granted, this effect is ameliorated ever-so-slightly by the new business tax (although the bottom line, as noted above, is still negative for four out of five Texans), and the Senate bill is better than the House bill. But it enrages me greatly that the Lege will use smoke-and-mirrors legislation to dress up a tax hike for working families while refusing to hold a simple up-or-down vote on an income tax bill which would be a real tax cut for most Texans.

Update: The always calm, cool, and collected (mostly cool) Kuff has his thoughts here.

Constructive Media Criticism

By Jim Dallas

If you've been reading the blog circuit recently, you know that Doug McKinnon, a former staffer for Bob Dole, has written a stinging op-ed in the Chicago Tribune about the media fascination with missing "single white females" --

Note to the news media--with an emphasis on the cable networks: Enough is enough.

Your continual focus on, and reporting of, missing, young, attractive white women not only demeans your profession but is a televised slap in the face to minority mothers and parents the nation over who search for their own missing children with little or no assistance or notice from anyone.

The latest missing woman to dominate the airtime of the cable networks was Jennifer Wilbanks, from Duluth, Ga. Like Dru Sjodin, Chandra Levy and Elizabeth Smart all before her, Wilbanks is young, white and attractive. Wilbanks, as it turned out, ran away of her own volition from her impending marriage. As a Maryland police official told me after Wilbanks turned up in New Mexico, "the media's non-stop focus on the possible abduction of Wilbanks forced the local officials and police departments to spend thousands of dollars they would not otherwise have spent."

Define racism. One could certainly make the argument that the cable networks that continually focus on these missing white women, to the virtual exclusion of minority women, are practicing a form of racism. The racism in this case, however, while predicated on color, does not concern itself with the color of one's skin. Rather, it is based on the color of money, ratings points and competition. Would an African-American woman who went missing days before her wedding receive the same (or any) coverage as that of Wilbanks? Not likely.

The unfortunate irony being that important trends go unreported while singular, sensationalistic incidents like the run-away bride story get coverage way out of proportion to their actual relevance. Granted, such journalism appears to get the John Tierney seal of approval, but I think we can all agree with Tbogg about John Tierney.

Here at the Burnt Orange Report we like to do more than idle complaining, so here's a hot (only because it's been simmering on the backburner for about a decade) scoop for all you journalists:

The Governor of the state of Chihuahua in Mexico said recently that international attention on the situation in Ciudad Juarez is damaging the city's public image. The purpose of Reyes Baeza's comments is unclear, but such statements in the past have had the effect of undermining families and local NGOs seeking justice.

To say that it is international concern, and not the situation in the region, that is damaging the city's image is very clearly wrong-headed. Ciudad Juarez has a reputation for violence and brutality against women -- not because of international concern -- but because of the reality and the institutional failures to deal effectively with this reality.

The reality is that since 1993 more than 370 young women and girls have been murdered in the cities of Ciudad Juarez and Chihuahua - at least a third suffering sexual violence - without the authorities taking proper measures to investigate and address the problem.

Thanks to the efforts of the families of the victims and local women's organizations, coupled with international campaigning by the likes of Amnesty International and V-Day, things have begun to change. In 2003-4, in the face of this intense pressure, the federal government finally agreed to get involved, with a range of measures to combat violence against women in Ciudad Juarez -- but sadly not the city of Chihuahua.

By "international pressure," of course, Amnesty International does not appear to be talking about the mainstream media in the United States. A LexisNexis search of major newspapers' full text over the last five years turns up 210 hits for "Jennifer Wilbanks", 293 hits for "Dru Sjodin", and "error, over 1,000 results found" for "Chandra Levy" (I counted 2,876 by splitting the search into about five different time-periods). Combined for three women, this is 3,379 stories over five years, or about one-and-a-half per day.

A full-text search of "'Ciudad Juarez' AND 'missing women'" returned 12 stories, four of which were printed by Canadian papers, three by Australian papers, and one by the London Telegraph. So basically, major U.S. papers have run four stories over five years. Wire services ran 18 stories; I could not find a single English-media transcript or magazine article containing those search terms.

Lexis-ing isn't necessarily the best measure of the mainstream media's focus, since it depends on the art of search-term-ing. Nonetheless, I think we can all see a pattern here.

If you've heard of this issue at all it's probably been because of human rights NGOs or Texas-based womens' issue advocates. That's how I'm aware of the issue, anyway. The media is doing a truly shameful job of addressing border issues, particularly when they intersect with the larger issue of womens' safety.

University Democrats Endorse Jennifer Kim

By Byron LaMasters

The University Democrats endorsed Jennifer Kim for Austin City Council at a specially called meeting today. While many students will have already left Austin by the time of the run-off election, the endorsement of Kim means that the APC (Austin Progressive Coalition) will not endorse in the run-off and no APC flyers will be handed out for the run-off. The Austin Progressive Coalition forms to support the candidates endorsed by both the University Democrats and the Central Austin Democrats during city elections and Democratic primaries. All APC endorsed candidates and ballot measures won in the election on Saturday (Leffingwell, Dunkerly, Smoking ban and ACC).

Darlene Ewing Elected DCDP Chair

By Byron LaMasters

Darlene Ewing was elected chair of the Dallas County Democratic Party tonight at their executive committee meeting. She was elected with 118 votes to 61 for Bruce Rothstein and 40 for Walter Hofheinz. A quorum of 56% was present (225 precinct chairs).

After the meeting I had the chance to speak with the new chair, and asked her if there was anything that she wanted to share with our readers. Ewing said that I could share with you all that she graduated from UT and is a proud Longhorn. She also agreed to participate in a Q&A interview on BOR in the coming weeks. If any of you have a question that you would to ask of the new party chair, please post it in comments (or email me).

Austin's Real World

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Because everyone else and their dog is linking to the Austin-American Statesman article about the Real World cast leaving Austin (finally), we here at BOR would like to wish them a farewell as well. I remember once almost running over a couple of cast members on my bike on the drag, so that's about as "real" as my world gets with them.

Here's the story.

Photo Gallery

Overkill?

By Jim Dallas

There's often more than a few reasons to oppose a bill; but a reader directs us to 93 reasons why HB 1167, a bill intended to reform fair housing laws, is bad for Texas.

After skimming the text and reading the committee report, I can see why Reps. Talton (yes, that Talton), Wong, et al. think they're doing a favor for Texans. Like many statutes, this one is very long and somewhat technical, and I don't have the time or expertise to fully understand it. But on balance those 93 reasons TLIHIS has argued seem awfully compelling. What seems most worrisome to me are the amendments that appear to eliminate reporting that assists in enforcement of civil rights and fair housing laws (the committee report says the reporting is "unnecessary", but given the history of housing segregation in Texas and elsewhere, I'd say that might be a bit of a cavalier attitude.) Having briefly encountered the federal Fair Housing Act in reading for a class, I do know that these laws can be somewhat of a pain in the neck for landlords, but I'd rather the laws get enforced than not, wouldn't you?

Musselman Elected

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

I'm back in Austin and wanted to give you guys a short report on the election in which I voted yesterday, that for Frederkcisburg City Council which my father Tom Musselman was running for. I'll have a more in depth report about things we did for this election and how our efforts paid off (once I have a chance to do some analysis on election results with our database). But for now, the following.

From the San Antonio-Express News...

Incumbent Tim Dooley and newcomer Tom Musselman won at-large seats on the Fredericksburg City Council on Saturday in a close race involving four candidates.

"I ran on pride in the community. My theme was pride, preservation and progress," said Musselman, a teacher at Fredericksburg High School making his first run for office.

Musselman, who finished on top, said he is joining a well-run city that must cope with growth.

"There's nothing broken in Fredericksburg," he said. "We need to preserve what makes us unique and we need to plan for our future."

Un-official elections returns are as follows (as 1 provisional ballot was cast):

1225 Total Votes- 18% Turnout

625 Tom Musselman*
551 Tim Dooley*
450 Ronnie Stotz
416 Sharon Bailey

*elected

Huge South Dallas Opposition Fuels Strong Mayor Defeat

By Byron LaMasters

I spent some time playing with the turnout numbers earlier today in the Dallas strong mayor race. The results? There are two major reasons for the defeat.

First, voters in north Dallas did not turn out very heavily for the Blackwood proposal. Of the north Dallas districts most likely to vote for a strong mayor proposal, three saw a decreased turnout from 2003 - Districts 9, 10 and 13.

Second, south Dallas and the African-American community turned out very heavily against the strong mayor proposal. The opposition in the Black community was fueled by a distrust of mayor Laura Miller regarding her opposition to former mayor Ron Kirk and former Police Chief Terrell Bolton among other issues. In the four city council districts represented by African-Americans, turnout increased dramatically. In fact, the turnout in two of the southern sector districts (5 and 8) more than doubled from 2003.

In 2003 there was a mayoral election in Dallas between Laura Miller (a Democrat and the wife of former State Rep. Steve Wolens, D-Dallas) and Republican Mary Poss. Many majority African-American precincts voted for Mary Poss, but the turnout was low. This time, African-American voters had the opportunity to vote against Miller, a supporter of the strong-mayor proposal without voting for a Republican - and the turnout reflected this. Check out the extended entry for the turnout in various districts across the city.

Here is a look at the turnouts of the 2003 and 2005 Dallas city elections by city council district. Listed first is the district number. Listed second is the turnout in the 2003 city election that saw a contested mayoral election between Laura Miller and Mary Poss. Listed third is the turnout by council district in the 2005 election where the strong mayor proposal was rejected by city voters. Listed fourth is the location of the districts (also available here). Listed fifth is the vote change in turnout in each district between 2003 and 2005. Listed sixth is the percentage increase in turnout in each seat.

Seat       2003    2005    Loc.    Change  % Increase
1       1892    1897    SW Ctrl 5       0%
2       2349    2993    Central 644     27%
3       6976    7386    WSW     410     6%
4       6613    9610    South   2997    45%
5       4123    8822    South   4699    114%
6       1764    1518    West    -246    -12%
7       4921    6688    SE      1767    36%
8       3239    7118    South   3879    120%
9       10748   9646    NE      -1102   -11%
10      9287    8140    NE      -1147   -14%
11      5039    7027    North   1988    39%
12      6931    7798    North   867     13%
13      9105    9447    North   -342    -4%
14      8158    10138   Central 1980    24%

A map of the districts is available here. Several notes should be made.

Districts 2, 11, 12 and 14 had open-seat elections this year as the incumbent was term-limited. This clearly increased the turnout in those districts.

In 2003, District 3 had a high turnout due to a redistricting incumbent pairing. Also District 6 was a newly created seat in redistricting in 2003 which was open. The lowest turnout districts - 1, 2 and 6 are all Hispanic majority districts. All three have a large immigrant and foreign population that account for their low turnout. Also, districts 9 and 10 were open seat elections in 2003, which may account for their decrease in turnout in 2005.

El Paso Returns

By Byron LaMasters

There will be a run-off for mayor of El Paso. I would like to know what my El Paso friends think about that run-off and the city council races.

El Paso results here.

More from San Antonio

By Byron LaMasters

Good coverage last night from San Antonio Election 2005 and The Jeffersonian (great predictions by the way!). The Jeffersonian also has some good coverage of the San Antonio city council elections. Also, there is more at The Red State.

Anyone have a prediction for the Castro / Hardberger run-off?

Austin Bloggers React to the Smoking Ban

By Byron LaMasters

Pandagon, Norbizness and Urban Grounds are not happy about the new Austin smoking ban. I was genuinely conflicted about the ban. I made up my mind only about 10 minutes before I cast my vote - a rarity for me.

As a progressive and as a Democrat, I was quite conflicted. Several governmental principles that I value came into conflict. On the pro-ban side, I valued the idea of protecting bar employees from second-hand smoke. I believe that all employees should be able to work in a safe environment, and second-hand smoke is definitely harmful to one's health.

On the anti-ban side I agreed that business owners should be able to decide what is best for their business. As a Democrat, I believe that as long as a business pays their fair share of taxes, pays their employees fair wages and benefits, supports the local economy and environment - then they should pretty much be unrestricted by government in the decisions that they make regarding their business. This was the best argument that the anti-ban folks made, and I had sympathy for the their position. Another good argument against the ban was that previous anti-smoking restrictions were placed on some establishments two years ago. Many of those businesses spent thousands of dollars to comply with the new restrictions by installing separate ventilation systems. It's bad for business to force them to spend lots of money every two years to meet new requirements.

However, the selling point for me was the UD/CAD/APC endorsement meeting. At that meeting the speaker for the ban, David Butts, made a very passionate speech in favor of the ban. Butts is an Austin Democratic political consultant for which I have a great deal of respect. On the opposing side, the anti-ban speaker made several of the aforementioned arguments, but also several very un-compelling ones. The idea that live music in Austin will die, or even seriously suffer because of the ban lacked substantial proof. Furthermore, some of the anti-ban spokesmen questioned the risk of second-hand smoke. That's silly. There are good arguments and bad arguments for and against the ban, but those two were bad.

Studies have shown that smoking bans may have a short-term negative effect on some businesses, but in the long term I doubt that it will make a difference. Seriously, does anyone really believe that San Marcos will replace Austin as the live music capitol? In fact, I know a good number of non-smokers that have said they would go out more to clubs and bars if there is a smoking ban. I personally will take issue with Urban Grounds on his assertion that people who voted for the ban will not go out to bars and clubs. Well - I voted for the ban, and spent a good deal of money last night at bars and clubs on 6th and 4th street. I had a few drinks, and didn't smoke (or drive for that matter). I had a good time, and was more than happy to support the Austin economy.

Marchant Son Defeated for Carrollton Mayor

By Byron LaMasters

I spent little time following the elections outside of the major cities last night, but one race in particular caught my eye this morning, and made me smile a little bit. Matthew Marchant, the son of the U.S. Rep. Kenny Marchant (R-Carrollton) lost his bid for mayor of Carrollton (a northwest Dallas suburb) to Becky Miller.

The final results from Dallas County Elections:

Carrollton-Mayor
(WITH 36 OF 36 PRECINCTS COUNTED)

Matthew Marchant 2,227 - 47.33%
Becky Miller 2,378 - 50.54%
Christopher Edward Norton 100 - 2.13%

I know next to nothing about Becky Miller, but I do know that Kenny Marchant was one of the most vocal Craddick/DeLay hacks during the 2003 re-redistricting ordeal (and was rewarded with a seat in congress - Texas's 24th CD, formerly held by Martin Frost). So, I was pleased to see Kenny's attempts to use his name to carry his son to office fail.

The Results from Fredericksburg

By Byron LaMasters

I am sure that Karl-Thomas will give us all the details, but here are the results via Fredericksburg Standard:

Tom Musselman practiced what he teaches and drew the highest vote total in the Fredericksburg City Council race today, May 7.

Musselman, who teaches social studies at Fredericksburg High School, collected 625 votes to earn his first term on the Council.

Incumbent Tim Dooley won reelection as well, posting a total of 551 votes.

Neuro-diagnostic technician Ronnie Stotz finished third with 450 votes and former council member Sharon Bailey rounded out the slate of city candidates with 416.

The total number of voters was 1,232.

In a four candidate field (where voters could cast two at-large votes) Tom Musselman not only won, but 50.73% of Fredericksburg voters cast a vote for him. Next highest was incumbent Tim Dooley at 44.72%. MANDATE, anyone? Congratulations again to Tom Musselman and his family.

Meanwhile, in Ohio...

By Jim Dallas

It's often fairly easy to get down on the Texas lege; the number of questionable stunts pulled each and every session seems to be almost innumerable. But looking at the big picture, sometimes you have to hand it to the Ghost of Legislatures Past for putting together some fairly sensible laws.

One lege horror story this year which was frustrating for at least a few of our readers involved a House committee basically shunning a bill to eliminate the statute of limitations for child molestation. In another post, I argued that Texas's statute was already fairly generous to victims (with limitations running ten years after the victim's 18th birthday, which could in theory be as long as 28 years), and hence I was skeptical of abolishing it.

Nonetheless, the idea of abolishing the statute of limitations is a worthy idea that deserves consideration. Several commenters disagreed strongly with my skepticism, and I'd note that at least a few were no idle contrarians, as they've been toiling awfully hard in his pursuit of justice. But, even despite the indefensible shenangins of Reps. Keel, Hodge, et al., the status quo being defended could be a lot worse.

How much worse? Well, try Ohio. According to Joe-in-DC of Americablog, in Ohio limitations run in only two years. Let me repeat that: two years.

That's pretty awful, and you might've guessed that everyone'd be for changing it to a Texas-style law, at the minimum. And indeed, every one says that they are - in principle. As the Toledo Blade story linked to by Americablog Joe, the trouble arises over whether to allow a one-year "look back" window for the filing of civil suits by victims who, previously, had very little recourse:

The Toledo Catholic Diocese is stepping up its efforts to defeat a bill that would rewrite Ohio's statutes of limitations for victims of child sexual abuse.

Bishop Leonard Blair sent a letter to diocesan priests this week stating that Senate Bill 17 "should be of serious concern to all of us," and urged them to contact their state representatives to voice opposition to the legislation.

...

key provision of S.B. 17, which was passed 31-0 by the Ohio Senate in March, and this week was sent to a House committee, is to extend the statutes of limitation for filing lawsuits over allegations of child sexual abuse.

Ohio law now requires civil suits to be filed within two years after the victim turns 18. The current bill would lengthen the statutes to 20 years after turning 18.

The diocese and the victims' advocacy group SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests) are in agreement in calling for the statutes to be lengthened to 20 years after reaching adulthood.

Such a change in civil cases would match Ohio statutes for criminal law, which were extended in 1999.

But Bishop Blair and the state's other Catholic bishops strongly oppose an amendment that would set a one-year "look back" period during which victims could file civil suits over abuses that occurred as long as 35 years ago.

Although Ohio Catholics have an interest in wanting to avoid legal battles (and I think Joe in DC is a bit reductionist, unfairly to the Catholics, when he portrays this as merely being about covering up pedophile priest scandals), I think it is just to say that putting much-needed reform on hold for that reason is extremely unfair and unreasonable.

Rep. Terri Hodge's crazy ramblings aside, Texas does not have this problem. We have a decent (although reasonable people can disagree on whether or not it is the best possible) statute of limitations. And at least in theory, we can have a fairly civil discourse about the issue.

Election Liveblog

By Byron LaMasters

[I've decided to post the most current update at the top of the thread. Just hit refresh for the latest.]

10:46: Ok, time to end this thread. I'll have some thoughts about the elections around the state later tonight or tomorrow on new threads. I also met Kimberly of A Little Pollyanna at a party earlier tonight. She's very fabulous. If only she would update her blog more often...

10:15: Dallas strong mayor plan defeated. This is a huge defeat for mayor Laura Miller. South Dallas turned out very heavily against as a personal rejection of the mayor. The Dallas Morning News reports:

Voters on Saturday overwhelmingly rejected a measure to give the Dallas mayor more power in what the victors said was as much a referendum on Mayor Laura Miller’s leadership as it was on city government. [...]

One of the most contentious issues in Dallas County, the strong-mayor referendum called for eliminating the city manager position and giving the mayor a slate of new powers, including the ability to hire and fire top city officials.

Supporters said empowering the mayor would make the city more accountable and put Dallas on the fast track to reducing the crime rate and furthering business development.

Opponents, including all 14 council members, argued that giving one person so much power would result in a dictatorship.

10:03: Wow. Austin (almost) finishes counting by 10 PM. Maybe it's just me but I remember some late, late nights with long vote counts in Travis County. The (near) final results are here. The surprise of the night is that political newcomer Jennifer Kim surged to a strong second place performance ahead of Gregg Knaupe and Mandy Dealey. Margot Clarke finished a solid first, but I expect a spirited run-off campaign. Here are the results:

AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL, PLACE 3
252 of 256 Precincts Reporting

Margot Clarke 23,332 40.36%
Jennifer Kim 15,764 27.27%
Gregg Knaupe 12,211 21.12%
Mandy Dealey 6,508 11.26%

Votes Cast: 57,815

In the other two races, Lee Leffingwell and Betty Dunkerly ran away with their races. Leffingwell won 62% - his closest opponent was Casey Walker at 14%. Andrew Bucknall won 8%. In Place 4, Betty Dunkerly won 63%. Her closest opponent was Wes Benedict at 18%. Jennifer Gale received 9% of the vote.

Finally the smoking ban narrowly passed. The FOR position won 51.7% (33,324) with the AGAINST position earning 48.3% (31,100). ACC Expansion easily passed with 79% of the vote.

10:00: Common Sense reports that Virginia DuPuy has been elected mayor of Waco. I know very little about the woman, so hopefully Nate can tell us more about her via comments, guestpost or trackback.

9:57: It's Castro and Hardberger in the San Antonio runoff:

Final numbers: 98.48% reported, Castro 41.81%, Hardberger 30.13%, Shubert 26.43%

9:55: Back online. Mavs up 15 at halftime in game 7, yay! More returns to follow...

8:42: San Antonio update - 17% reported: Castro 40.3% ~ Hardberger 31.5% ~ Shubert 26.5%

The first batch of election day returns are also in from Austin and Dallas.

8:38: Quick update. Karl-Thomas called me about 30 minutes ago. His father, Tom Musselman was elected to the Fredericksburg City Council. I know I speak for the entire BOR community in extending my congratulations to Tom Musselman, and their family. Not only was Tom Musselman elected, but he won the most votes in the race with four candidates (the top two vote-getters are elected). The one incumbent in the race came in second.

7:58: Returns should be trickling in for awhile now. I'm going to a few victory parties and catching some dinner. I should be back when things get interesting in a few hours.

7:48: Wow! The Dallas strong mayor proposal is failing very heavily in early vote. Based on these numbers, I would be very surprised if it were to pass:

Dallas-Proposition DALLAS
VOTE FOR 1
FOR 14,542 - 38.18%
AGAINST 23,543 - 61.82%
Total 38,085

This is a huge shock. I expected this race to be much tigher, but indications are that the southern sector likely turned out very high against the strong mayor, and the plan only received lukewarm support (if even a majority) in the northern sector.

Also in Dallas, a very close three-way race for District 14. Hunt (D) leads at 38%, Ingle (R) is second at 32% and Marcum (D) is third at 27% in the early vote. For the seat of term-limited John Loza in Place 2, Pauline Medrano looks to narrowly avoid a run-off if early vote numbers hold up - Medrano is at 51%, Barros-Greene at 34% and Tyler at 15%.

In District 8, former councilman Al Lipscomb has a narrow lead over incumbent James Fantroy of 36-35% in the early vote. This is an extremely interesting development. Lipscomb is a longtime civil rights activist who saw his political downfall after a bribery conviction that was later overturned. Many supporters of the strong mayor have suggested that Limpscomb was recruited to run against his former ally (Fantroy) in order to help drive up the turnout in the southern sector district likely to vote heavily against the plan.

Finally in north Dallas open seats 11 and 12 the early vote has Koop leading Harrison 55-45% in district 11. In district 12, Natinsky leads with 47% to 31% for Fleo.

On the Dallas County School Board two local Democratic activists are running in two of the seats. In District 1, Pauline Dixon has 34% of the early vote. She trails Jan Woody who has 39% of the early vote. In Place 4, Ann Hubener leads Sam Thompson 57-43%.

7:35: The Red State brings great news for Hardberger out of San Antonio:

7:17pm - Early voting numbers: Castro 38.5, Hardberger 31.6, Shurbert 28.0 Others: Who cares.

7:21: Just returned from the Travis County Tax Assessor/Collector office where they released the early vote count at 7 PM. Unfortunately, there was no Internet access available, so I'm back at home now.

The early vote is available here in PDF format.

In Place 1, Lee Leffingwell has a 40% lead over his closest opponent. Leffingwell took 56% with 15% for Casey Walker, 11% for Scott Williams and 9% for Andrew Bucknall.

Place 3 is already showing surprising results. Margot Clarke has taken an impressive 41%. Even more surprising is that Jennifer Kim leads Gregg Knaupe for the race for second place - and more importantly, a spot in the runoff. Kim has 24.3% (5368) and Knaupe has 23.1% (5100). If this trend holds up, it should be a long night to decide which of the two makes the runoff. Dealey is a distant fourth at 11%.

Betty Dunkerly has a solid lead in Place 3. She has 60% of the vote with 18% for Wes Benedict and 11% for Jennifer Gale.

In what will also be a closely watched race, the smoking ban leads 52-48% in the early vote. The ACC expansion has an overwhelming lead at 79-21%.

Polls to Close in Less than 2 Hours

By Byron LaMasters

I will plan to liveblog the Austin election returns at 7 PM when the polls close and the early vote should be released.

The returns for Austin will be available here. The dynamics of the Place 3 race are rather complex, but the early vote should give us an indication as to which three candidates are most likely to vie for the two run-off spots in place three. There is also a good chance that I will make a projection in Places 1 and 4 upon the release of the early vote. Some year it would be interesting to try an exit poll in local races. I think it would fun to see how close to the actual results an exit poll could project.

The Red State is liveblogging from San Antonio. They expect the early vote to be released at around 7:15 PM. TRS is also hearing that the RNC has 30 staffers on the ground for Shubert. Returns should be available here.

Dallas County Elections will post the early vote returns around 7 PM. I expect the election day vote for strong mayor to be at least several points lower than the early vote for strong mayor. If the strong mayor vote is losing or within a few percentage points after the early vote, there is a strong possibility that it will fail. With a larger lead, the strong mayor proposal will likely pass. Also I'll be watching to see if Democrats Pauline Dixon and Ann Hubener win their elections for Dallas County School Board. I am also personally interested in Dallas City Council Places 2 and 14 since I have followed both races.

Nate should be covering the Waco returns on his blog, Common Sense.

Hold on to your light-sabers, young Jedi apprentices

By Jim Dallas

Political Wire reminds us that negative campaigning requires some skill and wisdom:

Ask these questions before launching a political attack:

1. Have you established enough credibility?
2. Is your candidate guilty of the same thing?
3. Can you confirm the accusation?
4. Is it believable?
5. Will anyone care?
6. Do you know why your opponent did it?
7. Was the evidence obtained legally?

I recently had a conversation with some Britons about the terribly-genteel quality of their politics, and got dinged about a certain rumor you may or may not have heard (::cough::) on the Burnt Orange Report some time ago. Apparently we broke one of the rules listed above (without even trying, since we were reporting, not campaigning.)

The smear, it seems, is a weapon to be used by the ninja, not the kamikaze.

Election Open Thread

By Byron LaMasters

There are local elections today in many cities across the state - Austin, Dallas, El Paso, San Antonio - and of course, Fredericksburg (among others).

I have not followed the elections in San Antonio and El Paso very much. In the San Antonio mayoral, I think that Julian Castro will come close, but short of a majority. He should make a run-off with either Carroll Schubert or Phil Hardberger. Castro and Hardberger are Democrats. Schubert is a Republican. The Red State will liveblog the returns of the San Antonio mayoral race tomorrow.

In the Austin races I think that the smoking ban will pass in the mid-50s. I think the ACC expansion will get around 60% or higher. In Place 1, I predict that Lee Leffingwell will win with at least 60%. I would not be surprised if he approaches 70%. In Place 4 I predict that Betty Dunkerly will win re-election with close to 60%. In Place 3, I probably shouldn't make a prediction, becuase there's a good chance that I'll have egg on my face tomorrow night, but I'm a blogger, so this is why yall read us...

I think that Margot Clarke will come in first with just over 30%. Gregg Knaupe and Mandy Dealey will probably come in somewhere in the 20s and Jennifer Kim somewhere in the high teens.

Finally, as for Dallas, I expect the strong mayor proposal to pass very narrowly. The polls are pretty much dead even, but north Dallas usually turns out much heavier than south Dallas in city elections, and north Dallas voters support the proposal in polls, and south Dallas voters oppose the proposal heavily in polls that have been taken.

Tell us your thoughts and predictions in comments.

Final Thoughts On UK Elections (From Me At Least)

By Andrew Dobbs

I don't mean to distract people from the passing of Rep. Moreno, things are sad around here and the Capitol is said to be like a ghost town. I share with everyone else in expressing my sorrow at this loss and I'll be praying for Moreno's family tonight.

The elections last night were exciting, interesting and have shook up Westminster in ways that are quite unexpected. Let's run down some of the big implications of last night.

First, while the Lib Dems continued in their growth, they are still clearly not going to be a viable government any time in the near future. They did gain 11 seats, giving them their biggest number of seats in the Commons since 1929, but the fact that most of the swing was towards the Conservatives and not the Lib Dems suggest that when people are looking for an alternative to Labour, they look to the Tories and not the Lib Dems. Still, as Kos points out in a Guardian article, they gained four points over 2001, 11 seats and came in second in 160 constituencies, 50 more than in 2001. They are growing, but they are still not the second party that they ought to be.

Secondly, this was about the best possible outcome for the Tories. No one expected them to win-- Labour's majority was just too big. Gaining more than 30 seats and cutting Labour's majority by almost 2/3 does suggest that they are back to life. Michael Howard should not be so quick about stepping down as leader, but Tories should hope that this gives them a much-needed shot in the arm and that new leadership will mean fresh ideas for the party. Labour came back when they spelled out a unique, creative and ambitious platform for Britain. New Tory leadership could do the same for their party and turn their resurgence into a government in the next election.

Third, Tony Blair will not be PM for much longer. He is likely to hand off power to his Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown. Brown has always looked a bit uncomfortable mouthing the platitudes of "third-way" New Labourism. If he takes a hard tack back to the Left, it could mean jitters in the economic sector and an economic downturn that would give a big opening to the Tories. It would also take the wind out of the Lib Dems' sails. Still, he is very popular with Brits and his current leadership of the Treasury has been very wise-- his granting independence to the Bank of England will be heralded as one of the best moves Britain made domestically in the course of the twentieth century. If he can keep his popularity up and continue on a moderate political course Labour could be the majority for the long-haul.

The war was clearly unpopular in England, and Blair's character was called into question. Things have changed in Britain-- Blair received the lowest vote total for a governing majority in decades and for the first time in British parliamentary history the number of qualified voters who stayed at home exceeds the majority won by the governing party. Blair is the lamest of ducks right now and Britain is about to be undergoing some serious soul-seeking.

Joe Moreno Remembered

By Byron LaMasters

Many Texans of both parties are remembering the life of State Rep. Joe Moreno who was killed last night in a car accident. Here are some of things that have been written today about Joe Moreno.

Texas Democratic Party Chair Charles Soechting:

"Texas Democrats are saddened by the tragic death early this morning of our friend, Joe Moreno.

Joe represented Houston's east end with integrity and aplomb. His deeply rooted commitment to mainstream values made his constituents proud and embodied what his party stands for.

Our prayers are with his friends and family."

Harris County Democratic Party:

With respect and great sadness, the Harris County Democratic Party mourns the loss of this dedicated public servant and extends its deepest sympathies to his family and loved ones.

Governor Rick Perry:

Gov. Rick Perry today ordered flags to be flown at half-staff at state buildings in memory of State Rep. Joe Moreno

“Anita and I are saddened by the loss of a respected member of the Legislature who served his constituents with great dedication and integrity, Rep. Joe Moreno,” Perry said. “Our thoughts and prayers are with Joe’s family and friends during this difficult time. He will be dearly missed by all who knew him.”

Speaker Tom Craddick:

"We are in shock this morning. Nothing can prepare you for the sudden loss of someone that you see and talk with everyday. Joe was a young man with a bright future who early on, distinguished himself in his district and in the House," said Speaker of the Texas House Tom Craddick.

He said that he had been at the hospital since hearing the news.

"This has been a discouraging and heartbreaking morning in which I have prayed for everyone involved. We are grateful that Rafael and Monica are okay, but my wife Nadine and I are so grieved for the loss of Joe and for what his family must now face."

Chris Bell:

Alison and I were deeply saddened to receive word this morning that our friend, State Representative Joe Moreno, lost his life in a tragic automobile accident and we wish to extend our most heartfelt sympathies to his family.

Joe was a stand-up guy with a big heart, a great sense of humor and a strong dedication to public service. I got to know him best when we were all fighting together to stop redistricting in 2003. Joe didn’t play games and he didn’t make any of us beg; he said he would be in the fight all the way - and he was. Every Democratic member of the Texas congressional district was extraordinarily grateful.

It is always difficult to find words to adequately express feelings at a time of sorrow but perhaps some solace can be found in knowing that while Joe was taken much too soon, memories of him will live on and on – memories of a big, happy man doing whatever he could to lift up those around him. Joe, you will be sorely missed by so many. May God’s peace shine upon you in the better place you now find yourself.

State Rep. Aaron Pena:

What I remember about Joe was his love of politics, gadgets and sports. In fact he and Rep. Anchia supposedly had a friendly wager on the Rockets-Mavericks series, where the loser would have to wear the jersey of the winning team. Rafael is from Dallas and Joe from Houston.

Joe also loved to show me all the latest electronic gadgets. The cell phone I use was recommended to me by Joe. He was always one step ahead of the pack, always looking for the newest item coming out of Japan or Germany.

The second anniversary of the Killer D's is coming up next week. Joe was a good friend and an important participant in those trying times in Ardmore. Joe had shirts printed up and playing cards made to share with the other members. I remember we all spent one very special night at a "rib joint" called Budrows in Ardmore. About 15 reps. gathered for a good meal as we enjoyed the camaraderie of the moment. Joe was the life of the evening.

Joe, we are all going to miss you. Thank you for your service but most especially for your friendship.

And when we gather next week to remember those perilous days in Ardmore, we will all take a moment to remember you brother.

Until we meet again.

Houston political consultant Marc Campos:

My good friend State Representative Joe E. Moreno had died in a car accident. Joe was going back to Austin after the Rockets game late last night. I was at the game last night, didn't see Joe - now I wish I had.

Talked to Joe a couple of times last week about politics. I told him earlier in the year that I thought it was gutsy of him to be one of the four House members to cast a vote against Tom Craddick for Texas House Speaker. Privately I was proud that one of my guys had the fortitude to stand up and do the right thing.

Joe was a client. I put together his winning strategy for his election to the state House in 1998. I met Joe when he was working for former State Representative Al Luna.

Joe loved life. I can't believe he's gone. In my office I have his campaign letterhead, envelopes, and photos. What to you do with his stuff?

I feel for his family. I'll miss Joe.

More reaction over at Dos Centavos, Rio Grande Valley Politics, Greg's Opinion, The Red State and Off the Kuff.

Update: More in the Houston Chronicle.

Rep. Joe Moreno (D-Houston) killed in accident

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

The Statesman is reporting that one of our State Reps has died in a car accident early today. One other Rep was injured (non-life threatening).

Texas State Rep. Joe Ernest Moreno was killed early today in a one-car accident on Texas 71 in Fayette County; a second state representative and the chief of a staff for a third representative were seriously injured.

Texas Department of Public Safety officials said Moreno, D-Houston, died around 2 a.m. at the scene of the accident between Ellinger and LaGrange.

State Rep. Rafael Anchia, 36, D-Dallas, was taken to Brackenridge Hospital with non life-threatening injuries, officials said.

Monica Lisa Pinon, 28, who is the chief of staff for State Rep. Joe Pickett, D-El Paso, was also taken to Brackenridge Hospital with broken bones. She reportedly is in fair condition.

DPS investigators said the 2004 pickup truck that Moreno was driving was headed west of Texas 71 when it left the road. The driver apparently over-corrected and entered a ditch, when the truck rolled over several times.

The hearts of all the Burnt Orange writers go out to Rep. Moreno's family, as well as Rep. Anchia and Ms. Pinon. And to think I remember watching him debate on the House online video stream this last week. Rest in peace good sir, rest in peace.

Nerd Quotas

By Jim Dallas

Continuing my riff on zero-sum games, I'd draw your attention to the controversy sparked when Bill Gates said that Congress should eliminate the cap on H1B visas. Currently, the number of high-tech workers from overseas is limited by this cap.

Do technology workers need protectionism?

The Commerce Department undersecretary for technology, Phil Bond, cautioned Gates during his talk that unemployment among U.S. computer engineers regularly exceeds unemployment in other industries. "The politics of that are real," Bond said. Government figures showed 5.7 percent of information technology employees were out of work last year versus 5.5 percent of all workers.

The debate over U.S. technology companies hiring more foreigners occurs in the wake of the 2001 terrorism crackdown on immigration and amid increasing concerns about the theft of U.S. corporate secrets. The Bush administration has set up a counterintelligence office and published a first-ever strategy for preventing espionage against U.S. companies and the government.

"We still have to focus on border security," Rep. David Dreier, R-California, told Gates at his talk. "We can't be so naive as to believe there is not a very serious border security problem with which we have to contend."

Some labor groups criticized Gates' remarks.

"It's increasingly difficult for U.S.-based programmers to find work," said Marcus Courtney, organizer of the Seattle-based Washington Alliance of Technology Workers. "There is no support in the American public for completely abolishing the H1-B visa program and allowing companies to import foreign labor for these high-paying jobs."

Indeed, the tech sector is feeling a bit squeezed as the long hangover from the go-go 90s continues. Still, it's painful to watch the train wreck that is the H1B debate; I think I stand for all if not most of my friends trying to make it as engineers right now when I say that it would be much nicer if there were more technology jobs.

Greed, for lack of a better word, is good

By Jim Dallas

The Associated Press does a poll:

Most people say they are not willing to give up some of their promised Social Security benefits to save the poor from having their payments cut.

About 70 percent of people surveyed do believe President Bush's warning that Social Security is running out of money. But most also say they do not like the way the president is handling the issue, according to an AP-Ipsos poll...

The poll, conducted for the Associated Press by Ipsos-Public Affairs, found that 56 percent of respondents are not willing to give up some guaranteed benefits, while 40 percent said they would. Majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents were opposed to losing any benefits.

"If I were guaranteed that the poor would get what they're supposed to, that would be fine, but I'm not sure they would," said Margaret Normandin, 80, a Democrat from Laconia, N.H.

...

Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster, said persuading the middle class to give up benefits is a hard sell.

"The middle class feels like it's barely holding on," she said. "And Social Security is perceived to be the original middle-class support program."

...

When asked whom they trust more to handle Social Security, 48 percent of respondents said Democrats and 36 percent said Republicans. The president still faces strong opposition to his approach to Social Security, with 60 percent of those surveyed saying they disapprove.

The AP-Ipsos poll of 1,000 adults was taken May 2-4. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Last week, when the President gave his speech, we heard a lot of crowing about how he had finally changed the dynamic and forced the Democrats to choose between faux-progressivity and defending benefits for Republicans, or whatever.

In retrospect, can anyone think that such a claim is anything but ridiculous? It's a false choice, akin to asking middle America whether we'd prefer a kick in the nuts or a lead pipe to the kneecap. It's a false choice because it presumes that any solution must be revenue neutral - even when the entire "surplus" scheme engineered in 1983 came with the implicit promise of higher taxes on the wealthy.

Finally, the claim was and is ridiculous because, even as Americans have worked themselves into a panic over Social Security's solvency at some distant date, trust in President Bush in the immediate present has hit its own crisis point. Telling the American people that he wants to cut their benefits is not exactly the best way to sweeten that pot.

What Democrats must do is attack, because when you scratch the surface, the Republican plan continues to be the destruction of Social Security for the benefit of the rich and powerful. You can spin, but you can't hide.

To the extent that the people's own enlightened (or unenlightened) self-interest encourages people to grasp these key facts, and indeed support universality (in that weird sort of paradoxical Rawlsian way) the more, the better.

May 6 is No Pants Day

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Celebrated for years now, and an Austin invention, the first Friday of May (meaning tomorrow) is No Pants Day. Here is the schedule.

7-9 am. Capital Rally
Hanging out at the Capital, for the early-rising, hardcore celebrants. We're gonna promote No Pants Day to people early in the morning downtown. It'll be a blast to be out in no pants when those not in the know are milling about doing their work. Meet on 11th, in front of the gates, just south of the Capital.

9am-5pm. West Mall
The main event. No Pants Day Rally on the West Mall on the UT campus. Shirts, music, games, songs, handing out fliers, and just plain celebrating.

7pm- Miniature Golf
Mini Golf at Peter Pan Mini Golf. 1207 Barton Springs.

So, here's some things we need for The West Mall-
*musical instruments
*frisbees
*snacks
*handmade signs.

UK Election Open Thread

By Byron LaMasters

Labour looks to win a third majority in a row for Tony Blair, although sharply reduced from their current majority. I'm watching the BBC coverage on C-SPAN. Let us know your thoughts.

Ajai Raj on his Arrest

By Byron LaMasters

After an email exchange with Ajai Raj I received an official statement regarding his arrest. You can read it in the extended entry. Regarding the post on Urban Grounds, Raj writes:

"The quote they use from that Party Campus article is a fiction. I embellished those stories to make them more interesting- I am not nor have I ever been a drug dealer, but it's more fun to read that way, I think. (I had Party Campus remove just in case something like this happened, but too late I suppose)"

Raj has written an open letter which I have posted in the extended entry.

I’m writing this in response to the spectacle that occurred in the LBJ Library on Tuesday, May 3rd, 2005, when Ann Coulter, a diabolical, ignorant, but nevertheless charismatic right-wing pundit, came to speak at UT. Ms. Coulter- yes, Ms, I’d personally think such a vocal female conservative would be making Bubba a meatloaf instead of addressing a politically-minded collegiate audience, but whatever- is the author of relentlessly mendacious anti-liberal books, such as Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right and Treason: Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the War on Terrorism. She’s famous for having an ass that stores so many lies it makes clown-car designers envious. Like her or not (and if you do, I’m surprised you can read) she’s a Big Fucking Deal.

The title of the front-page story covering Ms. Coulter’s in the Texan was “Arrest Made at Coulter Speech”. You could also have caught it on CBS or in the Austin-American Statesman. The general idea is that some jackass made a scene, and Ann Coulter was also there.

I am Ajai Raj, and I am a jackass.

In his article, which I enjoyed and commend him for, Mr. Sampath quoted the former president of the Student Events Center, the organization which arranged the event. He wrote:

"The person had been disruptive the entire event," said Matt Hardigree, former Student Events Center president. "He took the opportunity to say something lewd and offensive and then made masturbatory gestures as he exited."

And what do I have to say in rebuttal? Not a goddamn thing.

Matt Hardigree got it spot-on! From the beginning I was yelling obscenities along with my friends, roaring at Ms. Coulter’s right-wing bullshit festival the way no one else had the balls to. Mr. Sampath writes in his article that (and this is my take) the protestors were told to be good all along. They were told to sit in the back and hold their signs and leave quietly. No wonder hippies get such a bad rap nowadays; protestors today might as well be ornaments on the Rightmobile. When I want someone to know I’m pissed off, I’m going to throw down and give them a good shit-ruining. I wanted to show Ms. Coulter that people are down if she wants to hold a circle-jerk, but we’re not gonna do it her way. Not me, at least.

So yes, the Q&A session came around, and it was pathetic. Her slack-jawed fans got up and licked her face so she could pat them on the head- one schmuck offered to be her bodyguard, and she smiled, doubtlessly making a mental note that she wouldn’t touch his nether regions if she were King Midas; liberal protestors posed well-intentioned but woefully timid questions and got shot down in a hail of ignorant shitfire from the She-Dragon. Standing in line awaiting my turn, I watched her send a moderate Republican, who had questioned the sheer incendiary magnitude of her rhetoric, walk away in tears when she tore him apart for daring to question her.

So yes, I saw my “opportunity to say something lewd and offensive.” And I took it.

She had just said something about gay marriage, the typical rightwing bullshit spiel that is still convincing people that the Bible is really the Constitution. Knowing that taking the time to say something insightful, specific, or even slightly critical would get me a lame comeback and a ticket back to my seat, I realized that the only way to win this battle was to fight fire with fire. Or bullshit with bullshit. So, as reported in yesterday’s Texan, I fired:

"You say that you believe in the sanctity of marriage," said Ajai Raj, an English sophomore. "How do you feel about marriages where the man does nothing but fuck his wife up the ass?"

And the crowd fell silent. Ms. Coulter stood stunned atop her stage, unprepared for a jackass to say something so utterly crude and to the point. Her pompous and mean air is enough to stump questioners into timidity, I wasn’t about to let her stop me. The audience members looked at me with raw disbelief; later, even friends who know me well admitted that they’d been surprised at how vulgar I’d been. The others in line for Q&A, mostly liberals, looked at me like I’d set their cause back forty years.

Did I give a shit? No. If I had a message, it’s that the whole thing was a joke- hell, our whole political scene today is a fucking joke. Everyone’s out to either pat themselves on the back for being right or whine about how they’re being wronged without ever lifting a finger to fight for it.

So rather than dignify anyone else, I “made masturbatory gestures” as I exited. Again, bingo! I danced a jig and set my hand a-jerkin’ at crotch-level, sneering for the crowd and letting them know I was ready to roll. I yelled to my friends that we were gonna split and made for the door.

Two cops approached me. I figured they were going to tell me I had to leave, so I said “You can’t fire me, because I quit!”

“You’re under arrest.”

It was my turn to be shocked. I tried to ask them what for; saying “fuck her in the ass”” at a college isn’t a crime, last time I checked. They apparently mistook my inquiries for aggression, and grabbed me roughly and slammed me into the door. Within seconds the backmost two or three rows was surging forward, following the scene as the cops dragged me out the door. They yelled and chanted; my friends were more outraged than I’d ever seen any of them before. As they pushed me into the car, I heard my good friend Jeffrey Stockwell scream, “THIS ISN’T A JUSTICE SYSTEM! YOU CALL THIS PROTECTING AND SERVING?!” The crowd took up a chant at the UTPD officers: “Shame! Shame! Shame!”

Shame is fucking right. When I asked the cops why they thought I needed cuffing, they told me that they didn’t even see anything that happened, they were just doing as told.

As a good friend pointed out to me, it’s a scary thought that people who are given weapons and the authority to forcibly detain people can act without knowledge of a situation.

I’m writing this at 7:15 A.M. Wednesday, having recouped over a few cigarettes and some coffee after being released from jail around 3 A.M. I had a party waiting for me- twenty or so friends and supporters, who showered me with gifts such as a card, sodas, cigarettes, food, and a Blondie CD (go figure). Several civil rights-interested associations approached me, offering pro bono legal representation and showing their support.

I have no regrets. Was I jackass? Yes. Oh Christ, yes. But here’s the question people ought to ask themselves. Did I deserve to be arrested? Did the cops need to rough me up for saying bad words at what was at least masquerading as an open dialogue? Do the people of Texas- hell, of America- feel that “potty mouth” belongs on the list of punishable crimes along with “aggravated assault” and “armed robbery”?

As stated in the Texan article, I am charged with Disorderly Conduct, which is a Class C Misdemeanor. Other Class C Misdemeanors include DWIs, possession of drug paraphernalia, and speeding tickets. Without getting into the justification for all of those, were my naughty words and crude hand motions as imposing a danger?

This isn’t about politics anymore, however it might have come about. Either you think it’s an absurd outrage or you think swearing is a crime. Trey Parker and Matt Stone are Republicans, for Christ’s sake. Raise your hand if you watch South Park.

This is about drawing a line in the sand. It made me proud to see people standing up and calling bullshit when bullshit needed to be called. All politics aside, people ought to ask themselves, how far should our representatives of “justice” be allowed to go? Do the American people believe in censorship rights for the rich and famous?

I know I didn’t slay the insidious evil that is Ann Coulter, but I did give her pause. She can easily go to another college or hoedown or whatever and spew her tired rhetoric without worrying about me. But I’m not the only one who feels this way. Other people will call her on her shit.

And hey, Ann, don’t come back to UT. We’re better than your bullshit here. And I can think of at least one jackass here who can dish it out better than you.

Filibuster Frist on your campus

By Byron LaMasters

As far as student protests go, I've been absolutely fascinated with the Princeton students protesting Sen. Bill Frist with their Filibuster Frist project. Ann Coulter can yack about how college liberals are dumb, but this is one of the most brilliant protest ideas that I have ever seen. I would encourage our readers to make a donation to their $5000 fundraising goal if you are able (and add $0.01 to it) - I just sent them ten bucks.

Finally, I know that it's final exam time, but you can help filibuster Frist on your campus. Campus Progress has the details. Are the UDems up for it?

How Republican Are you?

By Byron LaMasters

Since I have nothing better to post this morning, I'm stealing this quiz from Pink Dome.

Take it, here.

My results?

Well, I am not 20% Republican. I've never voted for one in my life, but yes, I agree with the above statement.

University Democrats on the Ann Coulter Event

By Byron LaMasters

There's another Daily Texan story on the Ann Coulter event. Here's what they write on the arrest of Ajai Raj:

Ajai Raj, an English sophomore, was released from Travis County Jail around 3 a.m. Wednesday after being arrested for disorderly conduct during political commentator Ann Coulter's speech at the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library auditorium on Tuesday.

According to the police affidavit written by an arresting officer, Raj was arrested for using "profane and vulgar language" and performing an "obscene gesture." Disorderly conduct is a Class C misdemeanor, which is punishable by a fine of up to $500. Other offenses considered Class C misdemeanors include: minor possession of alcohol, public intoxication, noise violation and simple assault.

Later in the Daily Texan article, the University Democrats Vice President made a statement on the situation which I agree with:

University Democrats Vice President Ali Puente said even though she finds Coulter's speeches offensive, the method Raj used was wrong. However, she felt that the arrest wasn't necessary.

"I'm saddened that actions of a few individuals make people with progressive causes look bad," Puente said. "He could've chosen a more civil method of protest that would've achieved his goal."

I agree with Ali, and the decisions that the UD's made on this matter.

Update: Urban Grounds investigates... and calls me "unhinged". Me? Unhinged? Never!

More: For a history lesson, check out Booman Tribune.

Atrios makes a silly

By Jim Dallas

The usually-lucid Atrios:

I've never heard of [Kenneth] Baer before, but given that he's described as a "a Democratic strategist and the founder of Baer communications" I assume he's someone foolish candidates pay to tell them how to lose elections. The idea this has anything to do with serious contemporary policy debates is ludicrous.

From Baer Communications, on Baer:

...former White House speechwriter, author, and analyst -- who has extensive experience as a communications adviser to public figures. He was Deputy Director of Speechwriting for Gore-Lieberman 2000 and Senior Speechwriter for Vice President Al Gore.

From CNN:

Gore 50,996,116 Bush 50,456,169

To be sure, there's a lot of Gore team consultants who deserve to be discredited. But Kenneth Baer, DLC-and-all, was one of the good guys.

There's a lot of righteous indignation to be directed at the consultant class, but a little discrimination might be well-advised.

Ann Coulter on Hannity and Colmes

By Byron LaMasters

I've been amused that the post about the arrest made at the Ann Coulter event last night has garnered over 50 comments today (thank you, Wonkette). I had no idea that this story would get so much coverage, but it's emerged as a national story within a day.

My position on this incident is pretty clear. The comment that the student arrested made was entirely inappropriate, and he should have been escorted out of the building because his actions were very disruptive and lewd. That would have been the appropriate response. I'm pleased that the University Democrats chose not to participate in the protest. The question asked only served to make those of us who think that Ann Coulter is a crazy right-wing nutcase look bad.

My problem with arresting the student is that it sets a slippery slope pattern. If someone physically attacks or threatens someone, then I have no problem with them being arrested, but I don't believe that lewd or disruptive comments meet that threashold. It's a slippery slope, because where you draw the line is so subjective and very open to interpretation. Should someone get arrested for saying "f*ck" or should it depend on the context? What about "f*g"? Should you get arrested for saying "a*s", or what about compound explitives?

I've forced myself to turn on Hannity and Colmes on FOX News tonight, because Ann Coulter is set to appear on the show. It should be interesting to watch.

Update: Matt Hardigree adds his thoughts here.

ACL Rumors

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Life Distilled, an austin blog, brings us what could be the preliminary ACL festival band list. While I don't agree with their characterization of Blue October as "less exciting" it is exciting to see Coldplay in the mix.

Someone “on the inside” saw the list and says confirmed acts are: Widespread Panic, Jimmy Cliff, Allman Bros. Black Crowes, Coldplay, Wilco, Oasis, Robert Randolph, Black Keys.

Here are some less exciting bands that will be there:

Fri 09/23/05 Blue October
Fri 09/23/05 Dave Alvin & The Guilty Men
Fri 09/23/05 DeSol
Fri 09/23/05 Robert Earl Keen
Fri 09/23/05 The Ditty Bops

Sat 09/24/05 Bettye LaVette
Sat 09/24/05 Buddy Guy
Sat 09/24/05 Dierks Bentley
Sat 09/24/05 Low

At least the bottom half of the list seems to be more or less true, as a friend of mine confirmed Blue.

Worst of Austin Poll

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

I don't know where it came from, but hey, if we have the Best of Austin, why not vote on the worst.

Poll here.

It's good to see of course that Perry is leading the way in one category...

Worst Politician

1. Governor Rick Perry : 102 (76%)
2. Mike Krusee - man behind CapMetro Rail Plan : 18 (13%)
3. Leslie - our favorite transvestite mayoral candidate : 15 (11%)

Filibuster Frist

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Princeton University is now around their 200th hour of filibustering at thier incredibly awesome idea, Filibuster Frist. Check out their page, live webcame, and extensive media coverage. If only we had the time here at UT, I'm sure this would have been a project our UDems would have liked to have done as well.

To The Random Brit Browsing Our Site: Vote Lib Dem

By Andrew Dobbs

Tomorrow is Election Day in the UK, and British voters have an important choice in front of them. It isn't the choice that would seem most likely on the surface: whether you want a government led by Labour, Conservatives or Liberal Democrats. Tony Blair is going to win, period. It would take a monumental, unprecedented and completely unforeseen jump from the Labour Party to one of the others to ensure any other outcome. That is not the choice.

The choice isn't even about whether you think Tony Blair has done a good or bad job. The fact of the matter is he's been better than average. He exaggerated claims about Iraq even more than Bush did, and that was wrong (especially when there were solid reasons for going to war without having to lie) and many of his top proposals have been a bust (NHS waiting lists are still too long, hospitals are dirty, schools have become unmanageable). On top of that he has failed Britain on some pressing issues, introducing tuition fees in Britain's public universities, failing to address increased long-term care costs for the elderly, letting local taxes spiral out of control for those on fixed incomes. Despite all of this, Britain has seen 13 straight years of economic growth, and more people have jobs now than any time in the last several decades. And despite the bellyaching by various elements in the UK, he was on the right side of the war against terror, investing his nation's honor and resources in the effort to topple the regime of Saddam Hussein.

But the question shouldn't be about that. When you know that Labour is going to win, you are presented with a powerful opportunity-- the opportunity to realign the political order. Tony Blair's "New Labour" mantra changed the political divide in England and established a new consensus. Now there is an opportunity to return the Liberals to their classic position as the second party in the British system. British voters can listen to the clap trap that Tony Blair is throwing out there about how voting for Lib Dems will return a Tory government (though that is next to impossible), or they can cast their vote for a fast-growing, progressive-minded, increasingly trustworthy party-- the Liberal Democrats.

Imagine this scenario. Imagine if, tomorrow, the Lib Dems get 28% of the vote (the most they would have gotten in decades), the Tories get 30% of the vote and Labour gets 35% (with the rest going to minor parties). Using the BBC's nifty seat calculator, that would mean a solid Labour majority of 116 (though a 22 seat loss for the government), a two seat gain for the Tories and a 23 seat gain for the Liberals. What would the implications be? First, it would hasten Tony Blair's handing over power to the more social democratic chancellor Gordon Brown. It would also mean that the Tories would be seen as an increasingly unviable choice for government, while the Liberal Democrats are emerging as the second party of British government. Continued refinement of message, continued build up of resources and a little bit of discipline could mean that in 2010 the Liberal Democrats emerge as the second party in Britain.

A Labour/Lib Dem divide means that the questions won't be whether or not government should support the most vulnerable, whether or not tax policy should be progressive, whether or not education, health care and other necessities ought to be priorities of the Parliament; but rather how those noble goals ought to be achieved. Britain will be a better country for that.

This isn't to say that the Conservatives don't have some interesting ideas and priorities. I think that their rhetoric on immigration has been rather nativist, but I think that the issue must be addressed-- Britain's values are changing, their culture is being impacted in dramatic ways. They are having trouble assimilating thousands of poor immigrants and it is causing alienation that leads to a multitude of social problems. Something must be done and only the Tories have had the guts to say something, though their guts have gotten in the way of their hearts. Also, I am a skeptic of European integration, particularly for the least European of all EU countries- the United Kingdom. I think that it is in Britain's best interest to remain a part of the EU that keeps its fellow countries at a healthy distance. Only the Tories are a serious Euroskeptic party (without the frightening far-rightism of UKIP or BNP). But the Tories are unprepared to lead and their message is muddled. Better a tried-and-true Tony Blair or an exciting-and-fresh Charles Kennedy than a muddle-headed unreformed Thatcherite like Michael Howard.

In the end, a vote for the Lib Dems is a vote for the Lib Dems. It is time that they emerge as Britain's primary challengers to Labour and redefine the political system in the cradle of parliamentary democracy. Tony Blair will still be PM on Friday, but hopefully some Friday down the road, the ginger-haired Scot will get the opportunity.

Dallas Co. YD's Endorse Bruce Rothstein

By Byron LaMasters

The Dallas County Democratic Party will be electing their permanent party chair at their May 9th executive committee meeting. Three candidates - Bruce Rothstein, Walter Hofheinz and Darlene Ewing are running. Last week, the Dallas County Young Democrats endorsed Bruce Rothstein:

At the April 28 Happy Hour, after meeting with all three candidates for Dallas County Democratic Party Chair and having the opportunity to ask them questions and listen to them speak, the Dallas County Young Democrats voted to endorse Bruce Rothstein for County Party Chair.

Bruce is a Precinct Chair, a member of the DCDP Advisory Committee, a former member of the Dallas County Democratic Party Legal team, and a sustaining member of the DCDP. He is a founding member of Dallas Area Democrats and the Dallas County Democratic Victory PAC. He has been a delegate to every state convention since 1994. Bruce was the co-chair of Dallas for Kerry-Edwards. He is also a former president of the Dallas County Young Democrats.

The Dallas County Young Democrats encourage all precinct chairs to support Bruce in the upcoming party chair election.

We would like to thank all of the candidates for taking the time to come out and meet with our members.

Have any other Democratic clubs endorsed?

Juan Garcia Running for U.S. Senate?

By Byron LaMasters

The man that Andrew dubbed in January the "Latino John Kennedy" now has a website. Many of us thought that Garcia would be a candidate for state representative against Gene Seaman, but Garcia apparently is aiming higher.

Via Greg and Kuff.

Los Alamos

By Katie Naranjo

The University of Texas has begun to reconsider its involvement with the nuclear weapons facility in New Mexico, Los Alamos. After the University of California was forced to release its control of the facility after missing data created security problems, the University of Texas and other independent corporations started to consider bidding on management of the weapons factory. Here is where people who are not regents of the board or university presidents can get involved. Today, Wednesday there is an open forum to discuss UT's management of Los Alamos and the bid on the weapons factory. Come voice your opinion and here experts and student representatives speak on an issue that is highly controversial. The forum will convene at 5:30 in ART 1.120. ART is located on San Jacinto at the corner of 23rd. For directions www.utexas.edu

Student Regent Bill Amended

By Byron LaMasters

On Monday, the House Higher Education committee amended the student regent bill, HB 1968. The bill co-authored by Reps. Eliot Naishtat (D-Austin) and Patrick Rose (D-Dripping Springs) would allow for a voting student regent on the boards of regents of public Texas university systems. However, a version of the bill that would only allow a non-voting student member was substituted at the House Higher Education committee. The Daily Texan reports:

House Bill 1968, left pending in the House on Monday, was filed by state Rep. Patrick Rose, D-San Marcos, in late March. The bill originally called for a change in the Texas Constitution to allow a student appointed by the governor to serve one year as a voting member on their university's board of regents. [...]

However, on Monday Rose presented a substitution to the bill that would take away the student regents' power to vote.

Rose said the governor's office and some of his colleagues have been "very hesitant" about having a voting student regent, but with changes under the substitution, Rose said, "I think we have a shot."

Historically in Texas, student regent bills have not passed final legislation. Thirty-nine states currently have students serving as regents, 29 of which are voting members.

Rose said the amended bill has support from everyone on the House Higher Education Committee, whereas the original bill did not.

He said a non-voting student regent is not perfect, but it is "a step in the right direction."

I would agree that something is better than nothing, but a non-voting student regent would have no power to actually influence the board's decisions. Governor Rick Perry still might veto such a bill though:

Former Student Government President Brent Chaney said there was "strong opposition" from the governor's office toward having a voting student regent.

"A regent position is one of the most highly coveted appointment, probably the most coveted, that the governor makes. It became fairly clear from the governor's office that the governor would like to keep it the same [as] it's been done in the past," Chaney said.

Gov. Rick Perry's office could not be reached for comment.

The senate side is also working on a voting student regent as well.

Currently, there are three student regent bills filed in the Texas Legislature.

State Sen. Jeff Wentworth's, R-San Antonio, Senate Bill 934 was identical to Rose's bill prior to the amendments. Wentworth, who previously served a year on the Texas State University System Board of Regents, said he would prefer a voting student regent, but will support the amendments to the bill because it is an improvement to the current system.

State Sen. Elliot Shapleigh, D-El Paso, also filed a student regent bill that would allow a student to serve two years on the board, with the first year serving as a designate member and the second year as a voting member. Shapleigh could not be reached for comment on whether or not he planned to change his bill.

While most of the SG leaders felt this to be an acceptable compromise, the Daily Texan editorialized that the compromise offered little to students:

A non-voting student representative on the UT System Board of Regents is not a student regent. He or she will be little more than an audience member.

The non-voting representative may have more time than the average student to voice concerns and complaints before the board. He or she might be invited to swanky fund-raising events and have the chance to show off his or her new business attire.

But the student will be seen as redundant with the student-advisory mechanisms currently in place at the system level. And, without a vote, regents will not be forced to consider student interest or opinion on contentious issues.

On the UT System Board of Regents, no vote will likely mean no voice. For UT students, this compromise offers little change from the status quo.

Student Arrested at Coulter Speech

By Byron LaMasters

What can I say? Welcome to Austin, Ann. The Daily Texan reports:

Incessant heckling and shouting culminated in an arrest Tuesday night during a speech by Ann Coulter, an extreme right-wing pundit, at the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library and Museum.

Shouts became so pervasive during the question-and-answer session that Coulter informed the organizers she would no longer take questions if the hecklers were not silenced. For a time, the shouts were considerably lessened, until the issue of gay marriage was broached.

Coulter said she supported the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman on the basis that a good woman civilizes and inspires a man to strive for something better, leading to a question that was met with a stunned silence.

"You say that you believe in the sanctity of marriage," said Ajai Raj, an English sophomore. "How do you feel about marriages where the man does nothing but fuck his wife up the ass?"

UT Police officers approached Raj to arrest him, resulting in a mass exodus of protesters chanting, "Let him go."

"The person had been disruptive the entire event," said Matt Hardigree, former Student Events Center president. "He took the opportunity to say something lewd and offensive and then made masturbatory gestures as he exited."

And for those of you wondering how much of our student fees were paid to that b*tch, the Daily Texan has the answer:

The $30,000 event was co-sponsored by the Texas Union Student Events Center and Student Endowed Centennial Lectureship Committee.

Update: There's a Kos Diary on the event.

More: In the Pink Texas blogged the event as well.

And More: The Smoking Gun has the police report.

And another: Some good posts also over at West Campus Insider. The story also made the Drudge Report and Wonkette (thanks for the linkage!)

Finally, Ann Coulter will be on Hannity and Colmes tonight. I'll update on this thread.

TSP Report

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

For those of you here that care about the Daily Texan and whether it's editor remains elected or gets moved to an appointed process, here is a report from the last meeting (even though I don't understand it all, a lot of you Exes and Alumni will). I tend to favor elections personally, but don't really have much of a dog in this fight as of yet. But for now it looks like the decision to move to an appointed editor or not will go up for a student referendum.

What follows is a brief summary of the Board's action at our most recent meeting:

1) The Board voted to ask the UT System to hold off on implementation of the revised Operating Agreement, which was initially intended to be a replacement for the Declaration of Trust. Legal questions regarding the nature of the current document should be resolved over the summer. At that point, we will move forward with either a revised trust instrument or a version of the Operating Agreement.

2) The Board voted to formally ask the UT System Office of General Counsel for an opinion regarding the viability of the Declaration of Trust. In the case that the document is considered to constitute a trust, we would want to know if certain provisions (including prior review and the elected editor) are conditions of the trust or merely amendable provisions of the document. We would also ask who the beneficiaries of the trust are: students or TSP entities?

3) The Board voted to ask for UT's approval to hire outside counsel to consider these issues as well.

4) Per my recommendation last month, the Board voted to rescind its March 4 vote regarding the elected editor. Though the Texas Open Meetings Act does not adhere to most actions of TSP, we want to be as open as possible in conducting our business. We rescinded this vote because some people believed that the March 4 agenda was not sufficiently clear to indicate that the editor selection process was under consideration.

5) The Board voted to continue to study the editor selection issue and to pursue a student referendum to determine how students at large feel about appointing the Texan editor. We are currently discussing the implementation of this process. The Board itself took no position regarding whether the editor should be elected or appointed. The issue will, however, be picked up again in the Fall.

6) The Board voted to ask the University to cease its practice of prior review.

(Don't) Shake your Buns Bill- HB 1476

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Pink Dome is going to liveblog the debate on the Anti-Booty Bill now being debated on the House floor. Yes, this is a real bill. Legislators think it is a priority to ban overly 'suggestive' dancing squads at your hometown football games.

Live Stream from House website here.

HB 1476

The full text is here but here is the "money".

Sec. 33.088. CERTAIN SEXUALLY SUGGESTIVE PERFORMANCES PROHIBITED.

(a) A school dance team, drill team, cheerleading team, or any other performance group may not perform in a manner that is overtly sexually suggestive at an athletic or other extracurricular event or competition sponsored or approved by a school district or campus.

(b) If the commissioner determines that a performance group described by Subsection (a) has performed in an overtly sexually suggestive manner, the commissioner shall inform the appropriate school district and the district shall take appropriate action against the performance group and the group's sponsor, as determined by the district.

Update- Initial vote ties 64-64. Much groaning. Motion by McCall to not reduce ANY of the debate to text passes. Motion for roll call. Final vote... 65-56. IT PASSED?!?! I'm waiting on the registry of votes but from listening to debate, my latest unfavorite Rep., Patrick Rose voted FOR this bill.

Let's hope this dies a painful death in the Senate and the House gets ridiculed on every News Station "legit or illegit" to quote Rep. Dukes from earlier debate on the bill.

Lampson to File for CD 22 Tomorrow

By Byron LaMasters

Via email:

LAMPSON TO FILE FOR CONGRESSIONAL RACE

(STAFFORD) -- Nick Lampson, whose public service career spans the range from local government to the nation's capitol, will make his campaign for the U.S. Congress official on Wednesday by filing the required papers from his family's longtime headquarters in Stafford.

Lampson will be available to the media at 12:00 p.m. noon on Jebbia Lane, a street named after his mother's family, who helped settle the area as okra and cotton farmers.

Wednesday, May 4 - 12:00 pm

12710 Jebbia Lane-Stafford, Texas 77477

Comments are Back

By Byron LaMasters

Just in time to comment about Ann Coulter and the anti-booty bill!

HB1706 Dead

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

In a move that will make Kuff happy, 11 of our 12 Democratic Senators signed a pre-emptive letter saying "no thanks" to the Republican's move to require more layers of red tape to our ability to cast votes in this state.

Latino's for Texas gives us the heads up...

Eleven Democrats sign letter to block voter picture ID bill

As the Texas House tries once again to pass HB1706 by Mary Denny, Senate Democrats have signed its death warrant.

The bill would require photo id or two aleternatives in combination with a voter registration card in order to vote. Democrats complain that the bill creates undue obstacles to voting for the elderly and students, among others. They also argue that this is part of a nationwide Republican effort to disenfranchise voters.

Senate Democrats have rendered the next several hours of House debate moot by signing a letter indicating that they will not vote to suspend the rules in order to bring up the bill. Senate requires 2/3s of the 31 members to vote to suspend before a bill can be heard.

I'm going to take a wild guess and say that Armbrister was the one who didn't sign it.

For those of you Attending the Ann Coulter Event

By Byron LaMasters

I'm not particularly interested in listening to that b*tch, but for those of you attending, come armed to force her to defend some of her more outlandish statements.

If anyone attending the event would like to write a guest post about it to post on BOR, please email me at: Byron AT BurntOrangeReport DOT com.

"If you don't hate Clinton and the people who labored to keep him in office, you don't love your country." - George, July 1999.

"Liberals become indignant when you question their patriotism, but simultaneously work overtime to give terrorists a cushion for the next attack and laugh at dumb Americans who love their country and hate the enemy." - Liberalism And Terrorism, May 26, 2004.

Phil Donahue: "I just want to make sure we got this right. Liberals hate America. They hate all religions except Islam. Liberals love Islam, hate all other religions."
Ann Coulter: "Post 9/11."
Donahue: "Well, good for you." - The Phil Donahue Show, MSNBC, July 19, 2002.

"When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors." - address before the Conservative Political Action Conference, Jan. 2002

“Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do. Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do. They don't have the energy. If they had that much energy, they'd have indoor plumbing by now." - Slander, p. 6.

"I think there should be a literacy test and a poll tax for people to vote." - Hannity and Colmes, Aug. 17, 1999.

"I think [women] should be armed but should not [be allowed to] vote. No, they all have to give up their vote, not just, you know, the lady clapping and me. The problem with women voting -- and your Communists will back me up on this -- is that, you know, women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it. And when they take these polls, it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care." - Politically Incorrect, Feb. 26, 2001.

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war." - September 13, 2001, National Review Online.

"Liberals become indignant when you question their patriotism, but simultaneously work overtime to give terrorists a cushion for the next attack and laugh at dumb Americans who love their country and hate the enemy." - July 3, 2002.

Sources: AntiCoulter and Dkosopedia.

DeLay Billboard

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

To tie into Byron's earlier post about DeLay's name recognition rising, I thought it would be good to point out Democracy for America/Texas's new billboard up in Houston. The final slogan, voted on by DFA members is shown. And of course, having that higher name recognition helps make more sense of it all. See it here.

PS- I'm hurting just as much as y'all with the fact that the comments are not working. Though it has been nice not to have to deal with comment spam for a couple days!

UT Los Alamos Forum

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Wednesday, May 4th
5:30-7PM
ART 1.120

Come join President Faulkner, Chancellor Yudof, Chairman Huffines and others in a question-and-answer style information session on UT and Los Alamos National Laboratory. The forum will be moderated by SG President Omar Ochoa. An informal reception with refreshments will follow the event.

Panelists include:
Dr. Robert Barnhill,
Vice Chancellor for Research and Technology Transfer, UT System

Dr. Charles Sorber,
Special Engineering Advisor to the Chancellor, UT System

Dr. Juan Sanchez,
UT Vice President for Research

Dr. Roy Schwitters,
Sid W. Richardson Foundation Regents Chair In Physics #4

Dominique Cambou,
UT Watch member

Katie Naranjo,
BOR Reporter!

Ann Coulter and the Socialists

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Ann Coulter is doing her little shindig tonight on campus (you'd need a pass to get in which are out now). University Democrats has agreed not to protest because it serves us little purpose to do so. In most cases, after the reporting is said and done, it hurts the protesting organization's credibility and the firing lines in the campus paper are not kind.

Of course, even with our efforts to limit any disruptive action, leave it to the International Socialists on campus to create some. An e-mail follows...

As most of you know, Ann Coulter will be speaking tomorrow, May 3rd, in the LBJ School Auditorium on UT Campus. Ann Coulter is a notorious right-winger who is intent on purging the US of all immigrants, Arabs, and the left in general. We, as progressives and leftists, need to be there to counter her racist lies and make it known she is unwelcome at UT or in Austin. The plan for the protest is as follows:

Meet at 6:45pm at the fountain just south of the LBJ Library (see this map)
The ISO will bring signs and banners, but feel free to bring whatever signs or displays you wish.

Protest outside the entrance to the LBJ Auditorium from roughly 7:00 to 7:45, we will be chanting and trying to engage possible supporters and bring them into the protest.

We want to get as large a crowd as possible, so please tell any friends or organizations you are involved in or have contacts with. This is a golden opportunity to stand up to the right and make a statement for peace, justice, and equality.

In solidarity,
Matt K. and Jon B.
International Socialist Organization

PS: For more information e-mail mattkorn@gmail.com or bougiej@gmail.com; or call Matt at 914-9226 or Jon at 799-3861.

Some of Coulter's gems...

-- Her anti-Muslim rant after September 11:

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and
convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about
locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We
carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war.
And this is war."

-- Her admiration of McCarthyism and her call for a new round
of intimidation against liberals and the left:

"The myth of "McCarthyism" is the greatest Orwellian fraud of
our times. Liberals are fanatical liars, then as now. . .
McCarthy was not tilting at windmills. He was tilting at an
authentic communist conspiracy that had been laughed off by the
Democratic Party."

"When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once
again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We
need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically
intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be
killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright
traitors."

Her call for more racial profiling:

"Like many of you, I carefully reviewed the lawsuits against
the airlines in order to determine which airlines had engaged
in the most egregious discrimination, so I could fly only that
airline. But oddly, rather than bragging about the charges, the
airlines heatedly denied discriminating against Middle Eastern
passengers. What a wasted marketing opportunity! Imagine the
great slogans the airlines could use:

"Now Frisking All Arabs -- Twice!"
"More Civil-Rights Lawsuits Brought by Arabs Than
Any Other Airline!"
"The Friendly Skies -- Unless You're an Arab"
"You Are Now Free to Move About the Cabin -- Not So
Fast, Mohammed!"

--Her immigrant bashing (characterizing the INS as too
lenient):

"Foreigners were relentlessly staging raids on our border,
which was defended by a hapless bunch of incompetents[LINK] at
the Immigration and Naturalization Service."

--Her threats against everyone who disagrees with her
politically (beyond the fact that anyone who considers the NY
Times to be a raging leftist paper has got some serious
issues):

"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the
New York Times Building."

DeLay Name I.D. at 77%

By Byron LaMasters

The Stakeholder brings us the news that Tom DeLay is a household name all across America. It was difficult to take advantage of Tom DeLay's ethical troubles nationally in the 2004 election, because many voters just had no knowledge of Tom DeLay. Now they do - and they don't like him. Time Magazine reports:

At first, it was easy to believe that the storm clouds gathering around House Majority Leader Tom DeLay signaled little more than another Washington tempest. After all, most Republicans reassured themselves, hardly anybody outside the Beltway or DeLay's district in Sugar Land, Texas, had even heard of the Congressman, much less cared about his inflammatory comments about judges or his overseas junkets that might have been paid for by lobbyists. But not any more. Letters and phone calls to congressional offices about DeLay have picked up sharply of late, an aide to the House GOP leadership says. The Majority Leader has become a punchline for late-night comedians; two weeks ago, he was the subject of the lead skit on Saturday Night Live. And one national poll, by Democrat Stan Greenberg, shows DeLay's name recognition at 77%—making him more famous than any other House member in modern history, except Newt Gingrich.

Don't Panic

By Jim Dallas

We're often asked, "what can I do to improve my blog?" Stephen Fry and Joby Talbot answer this question. iTunes required.

CD 22 Voters Disapprove of Tom DeLay

By Byron LaMasters

Via the Daily DeLay, Channel 2 Houston reports on the Survey USA poll on Tom DeLay's congressional district:

In general, do you approve or disapprove of the job Tom DeLay is doing as Congressman?

51 percent disapproved
42 percent approved
7 percent were not sure

What letter grade would you give Tom DeLay for his job as congressman? An A, B, C, D, or an F?

A: 23 percent
B: 19 percent
C: 18 percent
D: 16 percent
F: 22 percent
Not Sure: 1 percent

Based on what you know right now, do you think Tom DeLay should remain in his position as House Majority Leader, he should resign as House Majority Leader but remain a member of Congress, or do you think he should completely resign from Congress?

39 percent: Remain House Majority Leader
21 percent: Resign Leadership
36 percent: Resign From Congress
4 percent: Not Sure

The poll had a margin of error of 4.3 percent, pollsters said.

Place 4: Jennifer Gale "gets no satisfaction"

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

I was wandering around the web and came upon the Austin City Council video statements at the city election site. Though I'm not going to sit through a dozen videos, I was interested in 15 (17?) time candidate Jennifer Gale, transgender homeless former Marine who many of us on campus have come to know and love (well, a few of us). Last election cycle when Gale ran in an AISD election, she carried 3 of the 6 campus precincts and her chalk advertisements and round paper ads posted on electricity boxes in West Campus are common place.

But her video. You just have to watch it. The best part is when she breaks out in song at 3:44. I've cut the 4 best clips apart for you to watch if you have limited speed and bandwith.

Watch...

On the Ballot (1 Mb)
Finest Political Team (1.2 Mb)
I'm Sexy (1.3 Mb)
Gale Sings the Rolling Stones (3.8 Mb)

Full Version in WMV (28 Mb)
Full Version in MPG (37 Mb)

Transcript Highlights for the full verison-

min:sec
00:00 Hi Austin, it's springtime again!
00:17 < holds up her flyer >
00:27 Really, who votes on a Saturday so please, vote early.
01:00 Remember, the first thing you do is vote for the last name on the ballot, Jennifer Gale.
01:22 I'm also going to hire a wheelchair bound student intern to complete the finest political team ever assembled.
01:34 Or you could be my mascot. Every team needs a mascot!
02:06 Now many of you are going to elect me because you feel I'm sexy, and that should go without saying. But I want you to vote for me because we are going to be there for each other.
02:44 A newspaper owned by Austin like the Green Bay Packer owns the Packers.
03:08 As a former US Marine, I will come to you, to your high school to meet with you to promote our PTAs and share a potluck dinner and discuss issues.
03:44 < sings Rolling Stones- I Can't Get No Satisfaction >
04:12 My other opponent Wes Bennidict ran 2 years ago in Place 6, in the American of African heritage place.

Comments

By Byron LaMasters

I'm sorry that the comments are down today. I have a support request into Dreamhost, so I hope that the problem will be resolved as soon as posible. Until then, feel free to email if you need to contact me - Byron AT BurntOrangeReport DOT com.

Texas Golf

By Byron LaMasters

Like golf? Like Texas golf? Then check out the Texas Golf blog. I'm not a golfer myself, but I'm sure that some of our readers are golfers... so enjoy.

Nick Lampson on Taking on Tom DeLay

By Byron LaMasters

Nick Lampson has now updated his website with a message on his decision to take on Tom DeLay:

Dear Friends:

After much thought, prayer and counsel with my family, I have decided to run for the 22nd Congressional District of Texas.

My family has deep roots in Fort Bend County. My parents grew up there, were married there, and my siblings and I spent a great deal of time growing up on our grandparents' farms in Stafford. Much of my family is still there, and it is for them and all the people of District 22 that I am running for Congress.

In the coming days, I will begin sharing my ideas for a stronger, more prosperous America. In the meantime, thanks for visiting my Web site, and please check back for updates on our campaign for District 22.

Thank you for your friendship and support.

Sincerely,
Nick Lampson

Charles Kuffner told several of us that he has made contact with the Lampson campaign, and asked our input for some Q&A to be posted sometime soon. I'll let everyone know when it is up on Off the Kuff.

Some Republicans Looking to Take on Tom DeLay

By Byron LaMasters

Former U.S. Rep. Pete McCloskey is leading a group of Republicans who want to take out Tom DeLay in a GOP primary. The Houston Chronicle reports:

Former U.S. Rep. Pete McCloskey, in Houston Sunday for a conference on Palestinian issues, said he and other Republican elders are looking for a candidate to oppose U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land.

"Tom DeLay is an embarrassment to the Republican Party," said McCloskey, who represented Northern California from 1967 to 1983.

He met Sunday with Michael Fjetland, who was defeated by DeLay in Republican primaries in 2000 and 2002 and as an independent in the 2004 general election.

McCloskey is one of nine former congressmen who have formed an informal group he called the "revolt of the elders," to oppose congressmen who they think are guilty of ethics violations.

I wonder who the other eight former congressmen are?

Update: Via email, the list was published several weeks ago in the Houston Chronicle:

Mark Andrews, North Dakota, John H. Buchanan, Alabama, M. Caldwell Butler, Virginia, Paul Findley, Illinois, Bud Hillis, Indiana,James Johnson, Colorado, Richard W. Mallary, Vermont, Wiley Mayne, Iowa, G. William Whitehurst, Virginia, Pete McCloskey, California

Chis Elam adds his thoughts on the matter. I actually tend to agree with him that Mike Fjetland is delusional if he thinks he can get tens of thousands of Democrats to vote in the 2006 GOP primary to help oust Tom DeLay. The only way that Tom DeLay loses a Republican primary is if enough Republicans in CD 22 see him as someone that hurts their party.

However, if CD 22 Republicans believe that Democrats are attempting to hijack their primary, then Republicans who might otherwise turn against Tom DeLay would support Tom DeLay in order to maintain the integrity of their primary. Since there are more Republicans than Democrats in CD 22, then the suggestion that Democrats could help defeat Tom DeLay in a GOP primary is pretty much just a pipe dream.

Dean Barkley Joins Friedman Campaign

By Byron LaMasters

Hoping to replicate Jesse Ventura's 1998 success in Minnesota, Kinky Friedman has hired Dean Barkley - the architect of Ventura's upset victory that year. Read the AP story here.

Seven Texas Republicans Vote Against Ethics Rules

By Byron LaMasters

Last week congress reinstated the old ethics rules that the GOP majority threw out earlier this year. The vote was overwhelming (406-20) after the Speaker and GOP majority decided to give up on the weaker rules. Interesting, seven of those twenty "no" votes came from Texas Republicans. The AP reports:

Seven Texas Republicans voted against the reversal of changes to House ethics committee rules that could open the way for another probe of Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

DeLay, however, voted for the reversal.

The House voted 406 to 20 Wednesday night to remove changes that Democrats charged were designed to protect DeLay. Republicans said the changes were made to bring fairness to ethics investigations.

Republicans who voted against the rules changes were Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton of Ennis and Reps. Michael Burgess of Flower Mound, John Carter of Round Rock, John Culberson of Houston, Louie Gohmert of Tyler, Ted Poe of Houston and Mac Thornberry of Amarillo.

So, why did these guys vote the way they did? Louie Gohmert gave this explanation:

"I supported these common sense reforms when they first passed because they are more fair than the rules being reinstated, and I don't believe Congress should be backtracking to succumb to this partisan grandstanding," Gohmert said in the press release. "I know the Republican leadership is just trying to be magnanimous and accommodating, but the new rules were more fair in January when I voted for them the first time, and they are still more fair, so my vote stays the same, period."

The Fort Worth Star Telegram editorialized on Reps. Burgess and Barton:

Sadly, this Congress is so infected with the disease of partisanship that even the actions of the only totally bipartisan House committee -- with its equal number of Republicans and Democrats -- will be viewed through a lens of cynicism.

And by the way: It is disheartening to note that local Reps. Joe Barton and Michael Burgess did not join the overwhelming majority of their Republican colleagues in voting to re-adopt the former rules -- a move that broke the logjam that barred the Ethics Committee from convening to discuss any issue, not just that of DeLay.

Meanwhile, the Amarillo Globe News took Rep. Thornberry to task:

Only 20 Republicans, including U.S. Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Clarendon, stubbornly supported keeping the rule changes. U.S. Rep. Randy Neugebauer, R-Lubbock, approved letting the ethics committee do its job without manipulating the process.

Republicans were fighting a losing battle because they could offer no valid reason for changing the rules - one of which would dismiss an ethics complaint after 45 days - other than to provide political cover for DeLay.

Anti-Gay Foster Care Argument Debunked by WSJ

By Byron LaMasters

I was out of town for the weekend, so I'm first catching up from some things I didn't catch last week.

Last week the Lesbian, Gay Rights Lobby of Texas faced off against a woman from the Texas Eagle Forum on CNN regarding the Talton amendment that would ban gays and lesbians from serving as foster care parents. As you may remember, CNN refused to call out the Eagle Forum lady on her bullshit, but Jon Stewart did (see Gaywatch).

Now, LGRL points out that the study that the Eagle Forum used was a Paul Cameron study. That study claimed that gay and lesbian foster care parents were 11 times more likely to sexually abuse children.

Rushing to take on the claim was none other than a column in the liberal Wall Street Journal which pointed out that the study was "a textbook example of how flawed numbers can gain national attention if advocates work hard enough". In fact, another study linked less than 1% of sexual abuse of children to gays and lesbians:

The best available study I could find on this subject, led over a decade ago by Brown University pediatrics professor Carole Jenny at a Denver hospital, found that only two of 269 cases of sexual abuse over a year's time could be traced to a perpetrator who was identifiably gay. (Incidentally, Dr. Jenny told me she was prompted to conduct the study after reading an article that cited Dr. Cameron's research about gay sexual abuse, which didn't square with her clinical experience.) But her study itself is hampered by several factors, including its age and limited geographical scope, and that the overall proportion of same-sex households in Denver wasn't known.

As Dr. Jenny and her co-authors wrote, a better study would track a randomly selected, large group of either children or of adults and measure incidence of sexual abuse. I asked her if she thought it would be worth conducting such a study. She replied, "Would a big, expensive research project convince folks that gay people are not an unusual threat to children? I don't know, but research hasn't done much to inform the debate on evolution."

Paul Cameron's work also came up when the University Democrats debated the Young Conservatives of Texas on the issue of gay marriage equality last year. One of YCT's arguments was that homosexuality was an unhealthy lifestyle, and they cited a 1980s study by Paul Cameron. After a little bit of research, we discovered that the Omega study to which YCT referred was debunked not only by mainstream scientific organizations, but also by the oh-so-liberal Centers for Disease Control and the American Enterprise Institution.