Thoughts on Pennsylvania Day

Now who is going to pull it off in Pennsylvania? Conventional wisdom says that Hillary Clinton will carry Pennsylvania. Obama’s campaign says so. Obama himself says that a 50% plus 1 vote is a win, nodding to the Clinton Campaign that is favored in this election. Obama has distanced himself from “the spread”.

The spread is by how much does Hillary Clinton have to win in order to make it a decisive win? Recall that just short weeks ago Clinton led Obama in the Pennsylvania polls by 20%. Obama’s campaign has poured its bankroll into the Pennsylvania media markets and has blitzed the state for 7 weeks. Conventional wisdom says that should break it toward Barack Obama. Polls reveal that to be true and the lead narrowed to 5% of late. But with a 9 to 10% undecided in the mix.

The pols (as opposed to the polls) say that “undecideds” break for Hillary Clinton, especially if they made their decision over the last 3 days. They have in the past, so there is no reason to assume this is not going to be the case tonight.

Others point to the nearly 300,000 new registered voters. Who will they vote for? Someone had a breakdown today on who they are and I was quickly writing down those figures, only to realize that it’s pretty meaningless. Demographically, it sounded like a dead heat among the newly registered. My impression is that the new voters will have a null effect on this.

7:00 PM:

The polls close. MSNBC says it is “too close to call”. This with 0% of the precincts reporting. Meaning, of course, that their bean counters, using their models and exit polls can’t see a clear trend.

Bad news for Clinton. Without a clear trend at this point, it looks like a close race. If you are “playing the spread” it looks like, at this point, Obama is on top. The talking heads say that without a decisive +8 to +10% win, Clinton is in trouble. Superdelegates will break. Campaign contributions will dry up.

At this point, you can hear a collective “sucking in” at the Clinton Campaign headquarters in Philly, all the way down here in Texas.

7:34 PM:

MSNBC now says it is “too early to call”. Collective sigh of relief at Clintonville. Clinton has a measured advantage in early returns. What does that mean? It means that with the votes in it is now 65% Clinton, 35% Obama. Absentee ballots?

7:50 PM:

Hillary Clinton is the MSNBC projected winner. 1% of districts reporting. Right now it is 60% to 40%. Now, everyone is asking, what is the margin of victory?

7:54 PM:

3% of districts reporting. 53% Clinton, 47% Obama.

That’s a 6% spread.

8:03 PM:

6% of districts reporting. 52% Clinton, 48% Obama.

8:34 PM:

With 20% of districts in, its back to 53% Clinton, 47% Obama. Back to a 6% spread. It has been this way for about 20 or 30 minutes now. Without returns from a heavy Obama area or the converse, it looks like this is how the numbers are settling.

A 6% spread.

Now. Is this enough?

9:50 PM:

78% districts reporting. 54% Clinton, 46% Obama. 6% or 8% it doesn’t matter. It will probably settle at 8%.

10:07 PM:

The numbers remain static. All this does, then, is guarantee another several weeks of strife.

I tell you, this isn’t good for us. Tonight we hear of exit polls where 56% of Hillary Clinton supporters will not support Obama in the general election. A second front, therefore, has opened up on the war for superdelegate votes. Vote for my candidate or I will not vote for the party’s choice in the fall.

Really, I can think of no other argument against a superdelegate casting their support for Clinton. If this candidate so divides the party that they will vote for a Republican over the party’s nominee, then it’s time to tell them all that blackmail will not work here.

If you want to hold the Democratic Party hostage by promising to vote Republican if they don’t knuckle under and support their candidate, then it is time to close ranks. Time to close ranks for the candidate that will deliver Democratic voters no matter what. Not turn Democratic voters toward the Dark Side.

Pennsylvania has done nothing but expose the true colors of Clinton supporters.

And so it goes.

Earth Day? It’s Earth Day?

Here in Texas you would hardly know.

Back when I was just a young pup, Earth Day was a day of teach-ins. It was when we educated ourselves about the population explosion, extinctions of species, and the effects, health-wise and others, of water, air, and noise pollution. Back then we had no idea that the Earth’s atmosphere was heating up. We were becoming aware that human civilization was affecting areas that humans do not live and have not lived, but the notion that our carbon emissions would impact the average temperature of Earth’s atmosphere was something for science fiction.

Ironically, Earth Day is celebrated now. It was a solemn observation, now it’s an occasion for a party.

Look around the state. In Forth Worth children used chalk rags and yarn to produce a huge mural of Earth that could only be viewed from the sky. Hopefully, the clean up has been accomplished with minimal impact on the environment. Chalk is a good buffer, but if something goes chemically wrong, what you have is carbonic acid.

In Cypress, Texas they had a nice Sunday concert with an acoustic guitarist, and then a nice Earth Day sermon; then children planted a mulberry tree. Now if only they can round up some silkworms.

They planted trees in Killeen, Texas as well.

At Fort Hood they are going to hold a festival with music, food, inflatables and gas-efficient vehicles on display.

In Sugar Land, Texas Earth Day was preceded by “Environmental Week” that included an “Eco-Car Show” and music in a park, and also hosting a Recycling Event (limits on items accepted and charges may apply).

And, oh yes, Google celebrated Earth Day with a special screen. Cute, huh? If you click on the “Green Google” logo you get web results on the keywords earth or day.

It was actually nicer when they called this day Arbor Day. That way there was a one to one correlation between the festivity and the activity. The way it is now, an uninformed person would be hard-pressed to figure out just what we Americans, we Texans, were supposed to be doing today.

And Now For Something Completely Different . . .

On the eve of Pennsylvania’s primary election I thought it would be apt to show the video that has been rattling You Tube’s bandwidth for a week now. Here it is . . .

Baracky!!!

Do Texas Educators Teach English Good?

Yes, the title is a joke. Shouldn’t it read Do Texas Educators Teach English Real Good? OK, that’s not right either. But you do have to laugh when reading the opening paragraph to this article that appeared in the Chron today:

“The inability of many Texas students to write and speak good English is like a dreadful disease requiring aggressive treatment, say some education advocates who want to use different teaching approaches.”

So it looks like Gary Scharrer, an Austin Bureau Chronicle reporter may just be a product of a Texas education.

Back on topic. The State Board of Education of Texas is re-examining the English curriculum and some of the more conservative members are arguing for a back-to-basics approach in English instruction, because obviously the way we are teaching children in Texas now isn’t cutting it.

This is according to retired Texas ELA teacher Donna Garner who has the ears of conservative SBOE chairman Don McLeroy and board member David Bradley. Garner has some cooked up data showing that Texas students are in dire need of remedial instruction, with “half of Texas college freshmen …in need of remedial education, compared to only 28 percent nationally”.

And it’s all because, according to Garner, these students aren’t being taught grammar. They don’t know how to write because they don’t know the rules. You know, the rules that each and every baby boomer in America had to learn so we would write good.

(I’m still kidding about that good/well stuff).

The Chron article cites input from a coalition of instructors headed by Joyce Armstrong Carroll (is it just in the field of Education that PhDs who are women go by 3 names?). The coalition cites 50 years of research showing that students learn to read, comprehend, and write not by rote memorization of rules, but by an integrated approach that allows students to transfer what they learn into “solid writing”.

Said Alana Morris of Aldine ISD:

“If you drill the basics on handouts and worksheets, then that's where kids will be able to apply them. The bottom line is that drilling doesn't transfer into solid writing. Teaching grammar is important, but we want to teach it clearly so that kids can actually transfer it into their writing. Teaching grammar in drills makes no sense, whatsoever, to them.”

I can’t help but agree and have this little ditty to share with you. Something that I made myself remember by rote in 8th grade. Remember it because I was tested on it.

It goes like this:

Am-is-are-was
Were-be-being-been
Has-have-had
Do-does-did
Shall-will-may-might-must-can-could
(Turn the page)
Should-would

What is the significance of this list? I haven’t the slightest idea now. It got me an “A” on an 8th grade test. There were lots in my class who didn’t do as well because they thought the list ended at the bottom of the page of our grammar text.

I discovered that you had to turn the page to get the last two words.

That is the kind of rote English grammar instruction you got in the 50’s and 60’s, and it is just as Carroll describes. Mindless trivial information that cannot be applied to knowledge of how to write a structured well-thought out paper.

Public comment on the state’s English curriculum continues until May 18th. After that the board will retire to consider all input and will take final action 4 days later. This action, if finally approved, will decide how Texas school children will learn English for the next 10 years. This, some may know, is the standard textbook adoption term in Texas.

It’s always about the money, isn’t it? The final approved plan will dictate which texts the state will formally adopt. Obviously, money is behind everything. Every theory, every paid expert. Book publishers are lining up then, because the Texas book adoption is considered a real gravy train.

I like how the Chron article concludes because it is so true. Educators in the trenches know what works and what doesn’t. If the SBOE stumbles again, Texas’ professionals in every English classroom will simply fix it.

“‘Teachers will remain professional if the State Board of Education approves the pending document,’ Morris said. ‘Teachers are not the type that will march on Austin’ adding that experienced teachers will simply ignore the new English textbooks.”

Yep. That’s what happens. When bad textbooks are forced on a teacher, they plan work-around lessons to keep instruction in line with current teaching theory, teaching school children correctly despite the poor decisions of the state school board.

And yes, that is yet another example of your tax dollars at work.

Round-Up Time, Guts, Feathers and All

On any given Monday this blogger group that I find myself allied with comes up with a "Best of" series. A great many thanks to The Texas Cloverleaf, a fine blog that has graciously accepted the onus and responsibility for compiling these links into one cogent format, and then making it available to we, the TPA members, all for posting on our sites.

I give you The Texas Progressive Alliance weekly Round-Up.

In honor of Income Tax day, Lightseeker at TexasKaos examines the Republican's tax cut claim here in Texas and discover that what it really amounts to is "tax shifting" and we are the ones getting shafted. Tax Shifting With Bohac's Assessment Cap as Our Example.

WhosPlayin notes that John McCain has proposed suspending the federal gasoline tax, and points out that McCain would do just as well to try to suspend the law of gravity.

The Texas Cloverleaf is helping to save the earth on Earth Day weekend with helpful tips for saving energy and your wallet, as well as picking up trash with Stonewall Democrats. Don't mess with Texas!

CouldBeTrue from South Texas Chisme wonders if all Republicans are Tom Craddicks in training. Listen to Nueces County Republican chair Mike Bertuzzi ignore all the 'Point of Order' calls at the county convention. Sound familiar?

John Coby of Bay Area Houston has the real press release from Rick Perry about his run for Governor in 2010.

Here are local activist Jose Orta's Impressions Of T. Don Hutto, Williamson County's immigrant detention facility, that were posted at Eye On Williamson after his recent visit.

At McBlogger, barfly analyses what's really important to the American voter in this hour of cultural brouhaha.

Off the Kuff takes an early look at the race for District Attorney in Harris County, which is sure to be one of the hottest local races this year.

Today is San Jacinto Day and PDiddie of Brains and Eggs will be at the commemorative ceremonies taking place at the battlefield near Houston.

BossKitty at BlueBloggin points out that Your $300 - $1,200 Economic Stimulus Payment Cost $767 Million

Hal at Half Empty questions whether one person running for President is actually temperamentally fit to be in that office.

Vince at Capitol Annex thinks it is terrible that Texas teacher salaries are so low that that more than a quarter of all teachers must work a second job to make ends meet.

North Texas Liberal reports on a homophobic journalist's question to White House Press Secretary Dana Perino, and the smackdown she gave in response.

George Nassar at The Texas Blue takes some time out of Friday's morning news roundup to point out that were the Bush administration to use a logical metric, it would be clear to them that the surge has failed.

And there it is, Hillarycrats and Obamanites. Enjoy your day.

John McCain: Temperamentally Unfit for the Presidency

While Democrats watch the back and forth of the primary campaigns, which are starting to look, to many, as a fight that continues despite the fact that the outcome is all but decided, John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, gallivants around the country without any public scrutiny whatsoever.
Well, almost.

What about this Washington Post piece by Michael Leahy that was published early this morning (4/20/08)? It is an instructive piece that bears reading from front to back (warning, four pages).

Leahy writes of the famous, some say infamous, McCain temper. A temper that has impelled former friends and aides to question whether having McCain in the Oval Office is necessarily a good idea. He includes anecdotal verifications from witnesses of some of McCain’s past behavior, with a temper that has been called “erratic” and “volcanic”.

Some excerpts from witnesses and targets of McCain’s temper have these things to say:

“Former senator Bob Smith, a New Hampshire Republican, expresses worries about McCain: ‘His temper would place this country at risk in international affairs, and the world perhaps in danger. In my mind, it should disqualify him.’”

“’I heard about his temper more from others,’ said Grant Woods, McCain's first congressional chief of staff, who is generally regarded as McCain's closest confidant in his early political years. ‘According to them, he really unleashed on some of them, and they couldn't figure out why. . . . It happened enough that it was affecting his credibility with some people. If you wanted a programmed, subdued, always-on-message politician, he wasn't and will never be your guy.’”

“’What happens if he gets angry in crisis" in the presidency?’ Hinz asked. ‘It's difficult enough to be a negotiator, but it's almost impossible when you're the type of guy who's so angry at anybody who doesn't do what he wants. It's the president's job to negotiate and stay calm. I don't see that he has that quality.’”

Now listen. Over the past 7 years, Americans have been subjected to a president who has been intransigent in foreign policy, a president who has used his veto stamp more often than any other, a president who will not deal with the other branches of government to such an extent, that he creates one constitutional crisis after another. I am fairly certain that we Americans were not prepared for that. But this is different. Here we have a guy who will be the Republican presidential nominee with a 20-year track record of stubborn and angry intransigence, heated and self-elevating denigration of others. A man who makes enemies wherever he goes and has a long, long memory of people who have opposed him; a man with a vindictive streak almost as long.

With the recent turn of events in last week’s debate between Clinton and Obama, where the media has defended somewhere between 45 and 63 minutes of concentration on personal trivia rather than issues, we are now told that we know enough about how close the two candidates are on issues, but do not know about how they are as people. This, the media is now saying, is what was behind the Stephanopoulos and Gibson tag team trash talk that they called a debate.

Fine. That being the case, that people don’t care about the issues, but do care about how they “feel” about the candidates, whether they can trust this one more than that one, I say, fine. Then consider this: John McCain is temperamentally unsuited to be President of the United States. At best, what we can hope for if this man becomes president is a world that derides yet another president who cannot negotiate himself out of a wet paper bag.

At worst, we can expect endless war.

Well . . . no. I guess that’s not the worst case scenario. In the worst case, we can have a man in the Oval Office with an unchecked temper when the situation absolutely requires cool heads. A recipe for disaster.

An Afternoon With True Believers

I didn’t write a post about how there was going to be an Obama Rally in Sugar Land this afternoon because, frankly, I couldn’t find out what time it would be and didn’t want to steer anyone wrong.

Well, with 20-20 backward vision, the Obama Rally will have taken place starting at 12:15 PM, that is 4 hours ago at this writing, today at the Sugar Land Memorial Park in Sugar Land, Texas.

It’s a brand new park on the floodplain above the east bank of the Brazos River as it flows past First Colony. I had never met any of its organizers and was frankly wondering where they came from. My visit with them this afternoon answered that question. These people are all brand new friends who were all a part of the Obama for President effort of Fort Bend County.

In other words, these people are True Believers in Barack Obama.

True Believers in a presidential candidate that they all admire. True Believers in the man and his message. People that I like to call the new activists who have come out in 2008 in droves to put an end to the Republican hegemony in our nation’s capitol.

To put a Democrat in the White House.

First to speak, after the rally organizers, was a Democrat who likes to call himself a country lawyer. An activist Democrat at birth who made hand-painted JFK campaign signs when he was 13 years old. Don Bankston stood to give an empowering speech to this small crowd of Obama supporters. A speech filled with facts and figures of the county’s recent primary and its three senate district conventions, each of which brought the crowd to standing applause. As he wound it up, Bankston said something that needs to be said from now and on to the November election. He extolled the importance of the grassroots, that it was the grassroots that was going to deliver our country back into the hands of the people.

I know what he was talking about, and hope that there were those in the crowd that took what he said to heart. While it is fantastic that so many have decided to take it upon themselves to volunteer and help organize for the presidential campaign, what matters in the long run is what takes place after Obama wins in the general election. What is important is that these new activists not put their signs, buttons and banners away in their scrapbooks along with their memories of a stupendous political victory. What is important is that our new activists see their job as incomplete. Incomplete until Democrats have taken each and every county office in Fort Bend County. Incomplete until Democrats put our county, state and country back on the path of peace, fellowship and equality.

Don’t worry, there will always be those like Don Bankston around. Lifelong activists who will work tirelessly to see that our Republican friends will always have a minority voice in our government. But what this country needs right now is for some of these new activists, and these True Believers, to sign up now for another tour that goes beyond November 2008.

Our Republican friends and the corporations that support them won’t go away after November. They will be itching for a fight to take back what they have lost. We need our new activists to hang around and show our opponents that not only can they not have anything back that we’ve taken from them, but that also, we aren’t done yet.

Not completely.

Pre-Pennsylvania Primary Poll: Obama O-Belts it Out of the Park

In the latest Newsweek poll, released just before 4PM ET today, Barack Obama has a commanding lead nationally over Hillary Clinton among registered Democrats. This poll is remarkably different from a poll conducted by this same polling group in March, just after the Texas and Ohio primaries.

In March, Obama and Clinton were virtually in a dead heat in Democratic voters’ leanings, with a 45% to 44% split, a statistical tie. One short month later, however, Newsweek’s April poll illustrates a dramatic national shift toward Barack Obama, with new figures showing Barack Obama with a nearly 20 point lead over Hillary Clinton, with 54% of the voters opting for Obama, and 35% for Clinton.

Clearly Obama has gained the support of American Democrats, while at the same time Clinton has lost their support.

In Pennsylvania, with voters going to the primary polls in 4 days, recent polls show that the race is tightening, with a mere 5% difference between the two candidates; a far cry from the once-commanding lead that Hillary Clinton once enjoyed.

What actually plays out next week in Pennsylvania may be a moot point if these figures hold. Really, it’s probably impossible to know what is actually going to come out next Tuesday. Ten percent of the voters, according to the polls, have no opinion, a position that, quite frankly, defies all reason considering the fact that the news is filled with the actions and antics of both candidates each and every night.

Tack onto that the fact that the state has over 200,000 newly registered voters, most of them Democratic, and many of them new young voters. Voters whose personal habits do not include owning a “land line” to which pollsters are restricted in their calls. We don’t really know what these voters are going to do, do we?

Nuts and bolts. The poll was conducted over a two-day period from April 16th to April 17th, and recorded the answers of 1,209 registered Democrats. It has a 3% margin of error.

In a larger population, all voters were asked who they would opt for in November, with results showing effectively little difference in overall numbers, just that either Democrat would beat McCain by 4 or 5 points.

Really, at this point, who cares? McCain is running in this race unopposed right now. These numbers are fun to hear about, but that’s the extent of it.

What is more telling in this overall polling, is that Barack Obama polls over twice the number of independent voters than Clinton.

So what does all of this mean? All I can do is correlate it to what has happened over the past month, which is effectively nothing. Nothing other than things coming out in the news about each candidate and about how each candidate has reacted to that news.

Clearly the reaction has almost all been anti-Clinton.

Or pro-Obama. Or both.

Since there is no way for the elected delegate vote to tip the scales one way or another, how does a superdelegate take this news? Will a leak spring in the dike that is holding back the sea of uncommitted superdelegates? What is the trend over the past month? Consulting the premier site that keeps track of superdelegate endorsements, we find that since March 18th Obama has had a net gain of 18 superdelegates, and Clinton a net gain of 6 superdelegates.

My question is, is Obama’s 3 to 1 rate of gain in superdelegates indicative of anything?

Or is it indicative of everything?

Energy Remedies: The Parties Show Their Strategies

What a surprise. John McCain’s latest remedy to ease the pain at the pump for American consumers, just proposed, is to have a “federal gas tax holiday” for the summer. The feds take 18.5 cents from the purchase price of every gallon of gasoline that you buy. So it seems clear to McCain that the best way to provide a boost to our sagging economy is to let Americans save somewhere between $2.22 and $4.62 every time they buy a tank of gasoline (tank volumes between 12 and 25 gallons).

Wow. That’ll do it, don’t you think? For me, this works out to a net savings of $13.32 cents this summer. No, I don’t plan on driving anywhere out of the ordinary, and yes my transportation costs are lower than most here in Texas because I am one of the few in this state that doesn’t drive an SUV (Sucks Up Volatiles).

It is amazing what passes for economic stimulation among Republicans. Cutting taxes at such a rate so as to be virtually ineffective, while at the same time letting energy companies collect scandalous, no, pornographic revenues for their raw and refined products.

McCain’s plan is a perfect example of Republican fixes. Doling out dribs and drabs of cash to people. Amounts that cannot make a significant difference in their lives or economies, while on the other hand, severely degrading our country’s ability to build and maintain its transportation infrastructure. What does McCain think the gas taxes pay for? Does another bridge have to fall into a river before he gets it?

A barrel of oil today hit a high of over $115 per barrel. This is the same oil that cost an energy company $12 to lift out of the ground. Profits are more than obscene.

Enter the Democratic plan. Remove all of the tax supports that have been given by Congress to the energy companies. Federal supports for oil and gas exploration, production or research is like paying bankers extra cash to compensate them when they have to find new places to store their money.

Indeed, their profits have become so obscene that both Obama and Clinton have called for a windfall profit tax on petroleum. That is, when profits start to tip the scale towards obscene, the oil companies don’t get to keep that.

What you will hear from the energy companies then is that this will remove any incentive to explore for, drill and develop new reserves. Stock will go down. Reserves will hit the skids.

Right.

At even 60 dollars a barrel these companies are making so much money that they literally have the same problem finding a place to put it all. A problem that commonly plagues cocaine dealers.

Yeah, the other substance that Americans have been addicted to.

Michelle Obama Rocks the House on "The Colbert Report"

I didn’t get to see it last night. The Colbert Report is on too late for me sometimes. Too late on a school night. So I was really happy to see that the Obama Campaign put up the clip on You Tube, AND that Comedy Central didn’t have it pulled (I think they have some influence with those guys).



Michelle Obama is a very poised woman with what looks like a supreme case of “attitude”. This is the first time I have seen her outside of a speech making environment and I have to say I am impressed. It looks like she can not only keep up with her over-achieving husband; she probably stands around waiting for him to catch up with her from time to time.

Rick Noriega’s Senatorial Campaign Fundraising Hits Overdrive

First quarter fundraising figures for Rick Noriega’s senatorial campaign are out. Noriega, who will face Texas’s junior senator, John Cornyn this November, is poised to make the important inroads in campaign fundraising that will be needed this year, as first quarter numbers are showing.

John Cornyn has had the time, over these past six years, to amass an over $8 million trove of campaign cash to defend his seat this November. A defense that will doubtless prove to be futile given the senator’s poor approval ratings as well as the Democratic fever that is sweeping the nation (even finding purchase here in traditionally red Texas).

Still, Noriega needs and will continue to need supporters to contribute to the cause so that he can get his message to Texas voters, a daunting task in a large state with 5 major media markets.

Said Rick Noriega of the campaign’s fundraising history:

“In the primary we were running an insurgent grassroots and netroots focused campaign and we accomplished our goal of securing the nomination. Since our primary victory, we have seen increasing support for our general election bid and have put in to place the fundraising team needed win in November.”

That team is already seeing results. Take a look at this graphic. One picture tells a thousand words.

Fundraising for the month of February, alone, represents an over 380% increase over the previous month, and March contributions are over 250% of what they were in February.

I’m gratified to know that my meager contribution at the end of the quarter helped with this figure in some small way. I wish it wore more Rick, but you know about how Texas pays its teachers, don’t you?

Rick still has a long way to go and it isn’t too early nor is it too late to plop down some dead presidents to seal John “I Heart Dubya” Cornyn’s fate this coming November. Click here, or click on Rick’s campaign thumbnail on the upper left corner of this page.

Beating John Cornyn is going to take all of us. He has lots of resources and we not only have to make those contributions for the campaign to bring Rick’s Story to the voters, but also to show the rest of the state and country that this campaign is in the forefront of our struggle to put our government back into the hands of the American people.

Committee On Political Education Endorses FBISD Trustee Candidates

The Fort Bend Employees Federation, affiliated with the Texas Federation of Teachers, has released the endorsements of C.O.P.E. for three Fort Bend ISD Trustee positions that will be decided by the voters this coming May 10th.

Position 1 (West) is a position currently occupied by former teacher Stan Magee. Challenging Magee for his seat is Susan Hohnbaum, who has received the teacher’s union endorsement. Magee, it was reported today, will not be actively campaigning to remain on the board, noting that “new personal commitments in his life and commitments to his family needed to take precedence over candidate forums and debates”. Magee did not appear at the FB Employee’s Federation candidates forum, and did not submit answers to their questionnaire.

One would wonder, then, on the remote chance that Magee were re-elected to Position 1, whether he would have the time to attend board meetings, or to prepare for them.

C.O.P.E.’s endorsement of Hohnbaum is a no-brainer for this and many reasons.

Their endorsement for Position 4 At Large, however, went to a candidate who, similar to Magee, was a no-show at the FBEF’s forum. While Daniel Menendez did complete their questionnaire, I do wonder about an endorsement for someone who did not have time in his personal or professional life to attend the forum.

I am therefore a little perplexed at their endorsement of Menendez. Rodrigo Carreon, who opposes Menendez in this open seat that is being vacated by Cynthia Knox, did make it to the forum, as he did when he served on the Board’s bond committee meetings, as he does in nearly every regular school board meeting, as he does in every other kind of meeting in and around the county.

I tend to lean toward Carreon. He may be all over the map when he makes a case, but we all know where his heart is. A Democratic heart, by the way.

But I am in hearty agreement with C.O.P.E.’s endorsement of Dr. Jonita Reynolds for Position 5 (East). Reynolds is highly qualified for this position notwithstanding the on the job training that her opponent has received over the past few years. Trustee Caldwell, who Dr. Reynolds is opposing, was once in a voting bloc with Stan Magee. These two represent the 3rd and 4th members of the “new majority” that was voted in a few years back. A “new majority” that got out a broom and ended the career of Dr. Betty Baitland, someone who one can successfully argue was the best administrator the district has had in years. After their broom job, the board ran up the district’s charge accounts and caused general mayhem. Dr. Reynolds will provide a much-needed breath of fresh air on the board.

So the union got it almost all right. Near perfect really. As they say in the “Meat Loaf” song, two out of three ain’t bad.

A Texas SD 17 Special Election Before November? Don't Count On It

Now you would think that with State Senator Kyle Janek stepping down before the end of his term we would be having a bunch of candidates coming out of the woodwork to vie in a non-partisan special election to fill the empty seat.

And in that you would not be wrong. Trouble is, the fix is in and I wonder if anyone is going to be giving up their State House seats to gamble on a 3-way or 4-way election in a race against Janek’s “anointed one”: Austen Furse.

Oh, you say you don’t know who Austen Furse is? No matter. According to this piece in the Chron you don’t need to know, because he has been hand-picked by Kyle Janek to be his successor.

Who is Austen Furse? Well, first, the guy has never held political office. He’s a Harris County-based businessman with connections to local politics. As a whippersnapper right out of Yale, Furse served as a director of White House policy planning in the Bush-41 presidency.

All of that and he has another thing going for him: he doesn’t have to give up his current job to run for this seat.

See, while Kyle Janek has known about his impending exit for some time now, he hasn’t actually handed in his resignation to Rick Perry, and won’t. Originally he was going to resign by March 10th, allowing Perry to replace him during the next regularly scheduled election day, on May 10th.

But no.

If that happened the floodgates would have opened and we would have seen a veritable multitude assemble to take the spot. No, because you see, people are starting to wonder whether SD 17 is as rock solid Republican as it has been. According to the Chron:

“Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama received more votes in this year's primary than Janek received in his general election victories in either 2002 or 2006, non-presidential years.”

No, what you want to do, then, to guarantee a Republican win in SD 17 in a special election is to limit the challengers, and what better way to do that than to put off the special election until November, when State Representatives are all running for re-election? At least two State Reps whose district boundaries overlap SD 17’s were looking at this. One is Sugar Land’s Charlie Howard (R – HD 26), the other is Houston’s Scott Hochberg (D- HD 137). State law forbids a person from appearing twice on the same ballot for the same election on the same day. Both Hochberg and Howard would have to give up their seats to run in the special election.

Furse doesn’t have that problem.

So if anyone was wondering about the change-up we saw last February, and what would cause that, now we have our answer.

Now that appears to be the ploy. It makes you wonder, though if this seat coming available is just too good to pass up.

Scott Hochberg, the only Democrat currently rumored to be considering this race is still weighing his options. While the presidential primary numbers impress, Hochberg is more impressed by the recent showing for Democratic Supreme Court candidate Bill Moody:

“Hochberg said that statistic is less convincing to him that the district is trending Democratic than the fact that Texas Supreme Court candidate Bill Moody got 46 percent in the district with no Democratic get-out-the-vote effort.”

Makes you think, doesn’t it? Will Furse get opposition from Charlie Howard? I can think of a few who will absolutely rejoice at that. Will those two fight over the dwindling Republican vote in SD 17 letting Hochberg take the Democratic vote plus independents to win?

Seems like a better plan.

Is That A Naked Lady In Your Sunglasses, Dick?

The blogosphere is anything but a sane place to be usually, and this past week’s absurdity doesn’t give lie to that fact. Imagine that. In a discussion on DemocraticUnderground, individuals and bloggers took a good close look at a close-up photo of Dick Cheney, a photo taken on a fishing trip several years ago, and posited that the reflection in Dick Cheney’s sunglasses was in fact the reflection of a naked lady.

That when Dick Cheney goes fly fishing, he takes with him his rod, his reel, his creel, his tackle box . . . and a naked lady.

If only that were true.

If that were true it would at long last disprove the lie that Dick Cheney has ice water in his veins. That the architect of this morass called the Iraq War, a debacle that has only served to line the pockets of his company and those of his cronies, is in fact a real human being with real human desires.

But I guess not. The LA Times is showing an improbable, and I am guessing, photoshopped version of the same photograph, that clearly shows, far more clearly than the original, I might point out, that the image was simply of his own hand holding his rod. His fishing rod.

What then, explains the huge smile on this man? The man whose smile muscles were thought to be in an atrophied state from nonuse? What but a naked lady would bring a smile to the man? This is what must have been running through the minds of people posting on DU.

Preposterous.

In my attempt to get to the truth I took the original photo and extracted the pixels that represented the speculative naked lady, seen at right. Then applying a sophisticated computer algorithm of my own device, one that includes an advanced Fourier analysis, I came up with this result.

Far more probable.

Far more believable.

A result that does not require one to make too many leaps of logic.

From Scotland: Gore and Carter to Pressure Clinton to Step Aside?

I don’t know how to take this. According to this article in “The Scotsman”, a UK journal, President Carter and former VP Al Gore are being positioned to call on Hillary Clinton to cease and desist all anti-Democratic activities and fold her tent.

There is nothing about this in the American press, and that gives it some credence. Imagine all of the future headlines that wouldn’t ever be printed, headlines that sell newspapers.

Here’s what they say:

“DEMOCRAT grandees Jimmy Carter and Al Gore are being lined-up to deliver the coup de grâce to Hillary Clinton and end her campaign to become president. Falling poll numbers and a string of high-profile blunders have convinced party elders that she must now bow out of the primary race.”

“Former president Carter and former vice-president Gore have already held high-level discussions about delivering the message that she must stand down for the good of the Democrats.”

“’They're in discussions,’ a source close to Carter told Scotland on Sunday. ‘Carter has been talking to Gore. They will act, possibly together, or in sequence.’”

Now there’s all sorts of downside to this, like the 30% of Hillary supporters who say that they’ll vote for McCain if Clinton fails to get the nomination. This could be virtually assured if it is perceived that Hillary Clinton was forced to step aside by party elders.

My guess is that if this is indeed in the offing, they will wait for an opportune moment in the campaign, where it will be more obvious that she stands little chance to succeed, but stands a great chance to divide a party that should, by all rights, have an easy climb to the White House this fall.

I Dunno, I’m Kind of Bitter, Aren’t You?

While both the Clinton and McCain campaigns have seized and capitalized upon a remark that Barack Obama delivered to them gratis, courtesy of this website, and Barack Obama has apologized to any who might be offended by his remarks, I’m still trying to figure out why everyone is no longer bitter about what is going on around us.

I am extremely bitter about how Washington has turned a deaf ear to Americans, a grand majority of Americans, who want us out of Iraq, who want the Kleptocrats out of office, who want respect in the workplace, who want a piece of the American Dream. Yes, we are bitter and if Hillary Clinton or John McCain has a problem with that, then they are clueless and ill-equipped to govern.

Now Clinton and McCain argue that Obama’s “bitter remarks” smacked of elitism, a word that I object to because it comes from the wrong mouths. Who among the three candidates has got a hundred million dollars? Who among the three married a “beer heiress” said to be worth more than Bill and Hillary, combined?

These two are the very definition of elite, yet here they both are pointing fingers at Obama saying “How dare he say those things about all of us!”

Lest we forget, these were some of the words Obama spoke, words that brought out the righteous wrath of two very rich people:

“So it's not surprising then, that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who are not like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment, as a way to explain their frustrations.”

This is right out of a Democrat’s insight into why you saw Bush/Cheney signs posted outside of trailer park homes. Indeed, those who by all rights should be firmly in the Democratic camp, people who might benefit from changes in how wealth is distributed in this country, chose instead to side with the ones least inclined to help them out. Votes for Republicans were generated by bitter frustration and fear.

By the way, these are the kind of people who have been lost by the Democrats, people that are least likely to support either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. These are McCain's people now.

So big deal. At least now I know that Barack Obama gets it. He understands the things that have been in motion to divide this country so that they can keep the Kleptocracy in place.

So it does not surprise me that McCain jumped all over this, Obama was talking about his base. That Clinton did also, where her advisor, James Carville, pointed out these very aspects of frustrated bitter people in his book, only shows again what we all have come to know about her: Hillary Clinton has sold out to the politics of fear and division.

This is not good for Democrats. This has now hurt the Democratic Party. I gave Hillary Clinton the benefit of the doubt previously, and agreed that both campaigns should continue, because it brings excitement to current primary states, just as it did to Texas last month. Now I am not so sure.

Maybe now it’s time for Hillary Clinton to fade into the background. Now that she and John McCain find themselves on the same side, maybe now it’s time to bring all of this to an end.

Army Surplus For Sale: Equipping a “Well-Regulated Militia”

The fact is, you can buy just about anything online. And now I find out here that if you need a good pair of night vision goggles, or an “enhanced” body armor vest, those things can now be gotten on eBay or Craigslist.

What gets put up for sale is largely unpoliced on these sites, so even if you want to sell some Iraq cammies with all the patches, bells and whistles, you can, despite the fact that sale of any of that has been illegal since January 2007 after a team of Iraqis infiltrated a US base in Karbala wearing used US military uniforms. And killed 5 US soldiers.

Not one to get in the way of good old American capitalism, Congressman John Tierney (D - Mass) proposes a ban on the sale of all military equipment that is not older than 50 years old.

That makes tremendous sense to me. Any fool can dress up and arm oneself in pre-1958 military hardware and be turned into hamburger with the weaponry we have available to our military today.

So that makes a lot of sense.

But then, what about the 2nd Amendment? Hey, don’t we have a right to bear those arms? Don’t we have a right to protect our bodies against the onslaught of depleted uranium projectiles?

Don’t we?

We do! It is right there in the 2nd Amendment.

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Get it? It’s not a penny ante amendment we have here. This thing is talking about fighting wars.

Only a 4th grader would be able to misinterpret the full meaning of this amendment. Sure there’s a comma after the words “free state”, but they weren’t making a shopping list, they were framing a conditional clause. One condition, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state”, leads to the resolution: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Cause and effect.

The Framers, in their infinite wisdom, saw the need to write into our Constitution a fundamental right to bear arms so that we might, as the need arises, take up arms against a common enemy when events merit it. It made huge sense, in that this strategy worked well for us in the War of American Insurrection, as the British would see it.

Our Constitution is transcendental. Times change, weaponry gets upgraded to degrees of lethalness unheard of in the 18th (or even 19th) century, but the Constitution is a constant whose meaning transcends the generations.

The meaning of the Framers is clear: we Americans have a right to all of the most advanced weaponry that any present or future foe can arm themselves with. That is the full meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

After all, what if it happens that we stop fighting them over there? Won’t we end up fighting the terrorists over here? They with Heckler and Koch MP 5s wildly outgun we with our nickel plated pea shooters.

With what do you defend yourself against an RPG?

What if a Bradley Fighting Vehicle comes rumbling down our neighborhood streets with Islamofascist flags and symbols arrayed about them?

Clearly, there is something unconstitutional about limiting what we Americans can buy and maintain in our homes in order to guarantee a well regulated militia, as our constitution requires.

It is time, no it is past time, for our government to stop these unconscionable and unconstitutional acts of weaponry deprivation.

If every American owned a BAR, a LAWS rocket launcher (with loads) and a dozen or so hand grenades, I’ll bet the Islamofascists would think twice about attacking us at home.

And just think, it could be so convenient if it is all offered on the internet.

Or, if you think all of that seems like a bad idea, and that we should leave our war fighting to our professional soldiers, then maybe the 2nd Amendment has seen its better days.

Charlton Heston or no, maybe it should be repealed.

Colombia Free Trade Agreement Killed By House Democrats

Remember the dustup between Hillary Clinton and her former chief strategist, Mark Penn? Remember how he and his company was hired to help the Colombian government get the free trade agreement through to a quick signing? A bill that Clinton opposed? Remember that?

Well maybe then it is a relief to us that the Democratic leadership in Congress saw to it that the bill will never see the light of day in this legislative session. Or ever.

From The Hill:

“The House adopted a rules change Thursday that freezes the Colombia free trade agreement by waiving a requirement that Congress act on it within 90 days. The rule passed mostly along party lines by a vote of 224-195 with one lawmaker voting present.”

Pretty darn slick if you ask me. Republicans, you might imagine, are livid.

“‘The Democrats want to make an unprecedented rule change to abrogate their responsibility under [Trade Promotional Authority],’ said Rep. David Dreier (Calif.), senior Republican on the Rules Committee. ‘They're sabotaging our relationship with our best and closest ally in South America.’”

Best and closest ally? Colombia? Is it because the Bush Regime has completely alienated all of the rest of South America? All except the one country whose government agencies are complicit in the drug trade which is institutionalized there? All except for the one South American country that actively suppresses trade unions?

That ally?

So while Democrats and Republicans trade barbs over who broke procedural rules first, the bill remains dead.

As the story mentioned, the vote pretty much went down party lines, but then I had to ask myself about that 224 number. I’m pretty sure there are more Democrats in the House than that, so I read further.

Yep, ten Democrats voted against the rule change, and six Republicans voted for it. The Republican congressmen who voted for it, voted for it, surprisingly enough, because non-union overseas competition has taken jobs away from their constituents.

Ten Democrats voted with the Republicans, and with Bush. One of them was my congressman, Congressman Nick Lampson.

Now I know that Lampson represents a conservative district, and has to get his “Votes with Nancy Pelosi” numbers below 77%, but now I have to ask whether that vote was worth the voter angst that is going to result. Truly.

There are plenty of bills, I think, that Congressman Lampson can bolt to the minority over, bills that fit his “Blue Dog” brand of Democratic politics. But this one rates right up there with his FISA vote, the one to surrender our constitutionally guaranteed rights against unlawful search and seizure.

And I know that the question will always be asked of me “what are you going to do, Half, vote for Pete Olson?” And you know that it’s impossible to vote a straight Democratic ticket and vote for Olson.

But I have to ask now, with votes like this, does it really make a difference who represents the 22nd district?

Setting the Bar in Iraq

Watching clips of the Senate hearings, first of the Senate Armed Services Committee, then of the Foreign Relations Committee, I was struck at how General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker are mired in their own narratives. At one point, Ryan Crocker exhaled an exasperated breath at Barack Obama’s commentary when he asked him what are the criteria for us to declare a success in Iraq. Obama:

“When you have finite resources, you have got to define your goals tightly and modestly… If we were able to have the status quo in Iraq right now without US troops, would that be a sufficient definition of success? . . .

“I’m trying to get to an end point. The problem I have is if the definition of success is so high, no traces of al-Qaeda, no possibility of reconstitution, a highly effective Iraqi government, a democratic multi-ethnic multi-sectarian functioning democracy, no Iranian influence, at least not of the kind that we don’t like, then that portends the possibility of us staying for 20 or 30 years. If on the other hand, our criteria is a messy sloppy status quo, but there is not huge outbreaks of violence, there’s still corruption, but the country is struggling along, but it’s not a threat to its neighbors and it’s not an al-Qaeda base, that seems to me an achievable goal within a measurable time frame. And that, I think, is what everybody here on this committee has been trying to drive at and we haven’t been able to get as clear an answer as we would like."

Crocker:

“ehhhh, and that’s because, Senator, it is a. . . I mean . . . I don’t like to sound like a broken record . . .this is hard and this is complicated. I think that when Iraq gets to the point that it can carry forward its further development without a major commitment of US forces with still a lot of problems out there, but where they and we would have a fair certitude that they can drive it forward themselves without significant danger of having the whole thing slipping away from them again, then clearly, our profile, our presence diminishes markedly, but that’s not where we are now.”

Now here’s the thing. Crocker and Obama don’t appear to be very far apart on what you could call a set of criteria for success. Crocker admits that they aren’t at that point yet.

So if we can agree on a set of criteria for success, and they don’t include a completely reconstructed Iraq with a fully functioning government, a fully functioning economy, but just something that limps along, maybe someday we will be able to agree that the US profile and presence will not diminish as long as the Iraqis depend on US troops to bail it out all of the time.

In the end, it will be necessary to force Iraqis to stand up their forces and get them to fight by standing down our forces.

Standing down our forces first.

It’s either that, or resign ourselves to a continued presence in Iraq. A continued presence that only exacerbates the situation.

So Long, Shelley

I thought that I would be the last to say this, but I am going to miss Shelley Sekula Gibbs. Now that the 2008 Republican primary is finally decided, and Shelley found herself a few votes shy of winning in the Texas CD 22 race against “DC Pete” Olson, it dawned on me today that we aren’t going to have Shelley Sekula Gibbs to kick around any more.

So something has passed, and I must move on. But not before this final nostalgic look back. Not without a final send off.

Not without my farewell video.

Enjoy.



Bye, Shelley.

McCain: 100 Years of War

John McCain just doesn’t get it, does he? This is a guy who cannot put his finger on which people he wants to kill most, Iraqis, Iranians, Shi’a, Kurds or Sunni, and commonly mistakes one for the other. But mostly what he just doesn’t get is that Iraq is not Korea and not Japan.

His surrogates cry “Foul” over Barack Obama’s consistent characterization of McCain’s stance on the Iraq War as wanting “100 years of war”, something that they say he never advocated. Here is what McCain said:



He said this:

“Maybe 100 . . .we’ve been in South Korea, we’ve been in Japan for 60 years, we’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so . . .that’d be fine with me as long as Americans . . .as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. It’s fine with me and I hope it’s fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al-Qaeda is training, recruiting and motivating people every day.”

Now an ignoramus will agree with those words. Absolutely. Here we have a presidential candidate displaying his sheer ignorance of the place his country’s military is occupying.

Iraq is not South Korea. Iraq is not Japan. No one is planting IEDs along the road in South Korea. No one is shooting RPGs at humvees in Japan.

Our soldiers’ very presence in Iraq is an affront to Iraqis and others in the area. It was the establishment of our military bases in Saudi Arabia that sent al-Qaeda terrorists over the edge to plot a terrible revenge on US civilians. As long as our soldiers are occupants of Iraq, there will be a reason for the Iraqi Civil War. Their presence is the issue. That is the difference. Only that. Continued troop deployment in Iraq is a guarantee of continued violence. Endless war.

McCain doesn’t see that, but then McCain can’t keep it straight in his mind who the enemy is – geez, who can blame him, all the names begin with “S” or “I”.

So by definition, if our soldiers are in Iraq for 50 years or 100 years, it will be to fight a war, to be “harmed or injured or wounded”. To be killed.

Not to occupy, drink beer, play poker and watch a DMZ.

Not only is McCain wrong about Iraq, he is wrong about Barack Obama’s statements about him. Statements about his notions of the Iraq War. Obama has McCain dead to rights.

McCain has our soldiers . . . dead.

Election Runoff Night: Waiting on the Count

Two of the races that I am watching tonight are set to go on the Texas Secretary of State website: Democratic: Texas Railroad Commissioner; Republican: Congressman for CD 22. I have yet to find out whether the Fort Bend County Precinct 1 Commissioners races are going to be posted. So far, there is nothing on their Elections Office website.

I’m mainly interested in Railroad Commissioner because of the very strange results we got in the March 4th primary: Mark Thompson, a virtual unknown, nearly pulled off a majority vote with just over 48%. Coming in at a hot 2nd place was Dale Henry, who has been on the ballot for this office before. People are still scratching their heads about that one. The current theory is that he appeared 1st in line on the ballot in a majority of counties, and that alone could have done it, considering the influx of first-time Democratic primary voters this past month who showed up to vote in the presidential primary, and kept right on voting.

We'll just have to see.

This runoff attracts a completely different crowd: hard-core activists and others like me who have nothing better to do with their time. So I am expecting a different result but I am also curious because I have received a great deal of traffic on this blog in the past couple of days: people googling the keywords “Mark Thompson”. So, as I say, we’ll see what we’ll see.

CD 22 ought to be of interest to those of us who are watching the Republicans maneuver to retake their cherished seat in congress once held by Tom DeLay. Will Shelley Sekula Gibbs pull it off one more time and get enough people to go to the polls to vote for her as she did last time? Last time they had to dial her 16-character long name into a poorly designed electronic voting machine (although they say that “voter intent” was clearly indicated if a voter entered “SSG” in one case, and “Draculac _ _ t” in another”).

Sekula Gibbs shall evermore be known as the candidate who places calls and sends campaign mailers to Demorcrats who early vote. It went on up until even last night.

At the 11th hour, who does Shelley get to do a robocall for her? Norm Mason, the guy who was chairman of the Republican Party in Fort Bend in 1984 when the county and state went a deep crimson red. Norm wants Shelley to be the candidate because she is “the local conservative we can trust”. He warns us not to believe “the negative attacks against her” from this “Washington staffer with no record”.

Will Pete “I-am-not-Tom-DeLay-unless-you-think-I-am” Olson take the prize with his DC moneybag contributions? Sure he’s only been living in district for 7 months but that’s just because he spent 5 years in the military serving his country, and then 13 years in Washington serving Texas senators.

And learning the ropes.

So I am interested in this race, too, to see which of the two kinds of Republicans we have in CD 22 is going to prevail in this election.

It should give us some idea of Republican demographics, demographics of the activist kind, that is. If the early vote is any indication, where 1,120 Republicans voted early in the runoff, as opposed to 18,881 on March 4th, the voters who show up to decide between “DC Pete” and wacky Shelley are a truly high-graded cross section of the Republican vote.

In other words, “”The Faithful”.

Well here it is at 7 PM:

Congressional District 22:
Early vote totals show Pete Olson with 3802 votes (78.42%) to Sekula Gibbs’ 1106 (21.57%).

I can hear them say it right now over at SSG’s election watch: “It’s only the early vote”.

Railroad Commissioner:
Early vote totals show Mark Thompson leading with 8243 early votes (58.1%) to Dale Henry’s 5946 (41.9%).

Geez.

UPDATE (10:04 PM):

Now with some votes coming in, it is looking more and more like Shelley has had her last hurrah in front line Republican politics. With over 78% of the precincts reporting, Pete Olson’s voters outnumber the Shelster’s by more than two to one (his 68% to her 32%). This was predictable, and I think we all saw this coming.

The upside is that Nick Lampson finally gets to run against Tom DeLay.

And Fort Bend County finally came up with their numbers. In Precinct 1, it looks like Republicans and Democrats have both voted NO on Tom Stavinoha. Total Democratic votes with 100% of precincts reporting is 846 (577 Morrison, 269 Wallingford) and Republican votes against Stavinoha, for Greg “I Love Me Some Toll Road” Ordineaux is 2077 (with 76% of precincts reporting). That’s a total of 1676 votes (36.44%) for Tom Stavinoha, and 2923 votes (65.56%) against him.

If anything, this election was a referendum on Tom Stavinoha. Have a nice retirement, Tom!

Now about that Railroad Commissioner race. What’s with that? Someday I am going to figure this out. One thing’s fore sure, someone dropped the ball, here. It’s either that the Dale Henry campaign was DOA, or everyone Googled “Mark Thompson” and liked what they saw.

Texas CD 22: It’s Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber

It’s down to the wire in the Fighting 22nd. Tomorrow, April 8th, is primary runoff day in Texas and Republicans of all stripes will be falling all over each other in CD 22 to get to those polls and cast their votes for their candidate of preference: Shelley Sekula Gibbs or Pete Olson.. The first step to reclaim the congressional seat that Tom DeLay, their former hero and current martyr, lost when Nick Lampson kicked him all the way to Virginia in 2006.

My mail box was stuffed with mailers. My phone voicemail was filled with robocalls.

And, if you haven’t guessed it yet, I am a Democrat.

Pretty dumb, don’t you think, to send stuff to someone who has early voted in the Democratic primary? But that’s what we are dealing with: Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber.

Appropriate names because from where I sit I cannot tell the difference between these two. Can you? Well, OK, one is wackier than the other, but if one has wackiness, the other has some odious ties. Yes, Pete Olson, for all his seriousness, for all his military service, has such extreme entanglements with what remains of Tom DeLay’s Washington machine.

This, by the way, actually attracts people to Pete Olson. There are still voters here in CD 22 who think “Ht Tub” Tom got a bad deal and the only reason he isn’t in jail right now is that they don’t have a case against him.

Tom DeLay is a martyr to these people.

So if Pete Olson has a base, it is these people. People, by the way, that Shelley would like to have as well, because she, after all, is the true conservative of the two.

So here in the Fighting 22nd, we have a real street brawl going, being fought by two powerhouses: as self-funding wacky dermatologist and a DC-connected lawyer.

My. What a choice Dark Side voters have.

Guess what, though? The vote tomorrow doesn’t really matter. CD 22 voters are done with the Greedy Old People. Like everywhere else, change is in the air. What happens tomorrow will have a lot to do with which of the two, Tweedledumb or Tweedledumber, will have to spend more Republican money this year, only to lose in November.

And that’s about it.

It might be nice to end it here with a passage from Lewis Carroll’s story, because it seems so appropriate. Appropriate at so many levels.

"Tweedledum and Tweedledee

Agreed to have a battle!

For Tweedledum said Tweedledee

Had spoiled his nice new rattle.
Just then flew down a monstrous crow,

As black as a tar-barrel!

Which frightened both the heroes so,

They quite forgot their quarrel.'

Why Some Edwards Supporters Went With Barack Obama

It’s a pretty good You Tube video that reminds me of why, when John Edwards took himself out of the running in the presidential race earlier this year, I opted to then support the candidacy of Barack Obama.



John Edwards was the progressive populist Democratic candidate. When he said those words he was describing the differences between himself and Hillary Clinton, then the front-runner in the primaries. For the most part, the same words describe the differences between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Many of we former Edwards supporters shifted our support to Obama. I’d say the majority of us did, which is one reason why, I think, Obama overtook Clinton for the lead later on in the primaries.

For reasons of their own, some former Edwards supporters shifted their allegiance to the Clinton camp. I personally, can’t fathom them, but when pressed for an answer, most have told me that Bill Clinton was a key factor in their reasoning.

In having Hillary, we have Bill again.

I guess there’s no getting past that, and if you like the status quo, if that’s what makes you most comfortable, then that would be the way to go.

As Edwards supporters, though, we were for broad institutional change in how our government conducts its business. Edwards, while now a millionaire several times over, was still the people's candidate, someone who had not forgotten his roots. Now that we find that Hillary Clinton, with Bill, are millionaires 100 times over, now I wonder whether Hillary Clinton can be called "the people's candidate".

So former Edwards supporters who are still on the fence, or former Edwards supporters who are now for Clinton, listen to your former preferred candidate once more. Listen to his words and ask yourself if you still believe them.

Two on the SOFA, and Why A Treaty Isn’t a Treaty

The USA – Iraq “bilateral agreement” that is currently being hashed out, being touted as a “Cooperation Agreement” or a “Declaration of Principles” isn’t a treaty, according to the Bush Regime. According to Condoleeza Rice, the Bush Regime’s current incarnation of Joseph Goebbels, this agreement is more like a SOFA or “status of forces agreement,” which, according to Rice, does not require the consent of congress.

As a treaty does.

This issue comes up again as news has broken that the Blackwater group, an international security (that is, mercenary) services group will have its contract renewed. Recall that Blackwater is responsible for the reckless killing of Iraqi citizens earlier this year, an execution for whose compensation was recently, and angrily refused by surviving family members.

The Iraqis hate Blackwater. Blackwater mercenaries were used as “security consultants” in Iraq since early on in the war, and made the news last year when they fired on and killed 17 innocent Iraqis in Baghdad.

The immunity that they enjoy from any prosecution or any other consequences of their murderous acts particularly rankle Iraqi government officials. They have incurred enough Iraqi hostility that, upon hearing the news that the Blackwater contract was being renewed, Iraqi advisor to Prime Minister al-Maliki, Sami al-Askari, said this:

“This is bad news. I personally am not happy with this, especially because they have committed acts of aggression, killed Iraqis and this has not been resolved yet positively for families of victims.”

Hasn’t been, and won’t be, I might add, because the families of the victims are too outraged to accept compensation for the deaths of their loved ones.

Another al-Maliki advisor observed, and this is where all of this ties together, that “the contract would be temporary since the current U.N. mandate under which the United States operates in Iraq will expire at the end of the year, to be replaced by a bilateral agreement now being negotiated” (from CNN).

It is clear, then, that the Iraqi government wants to include in this bilateral agreement, a provision that would bring an end to Blackwater operations inside their border.

Now this, I want to point out, looks like a negotiation about what they call an “authority to fight”. An authority to fight is something that is negotiated in treaties, not SOFAs. And there is nothing in this that has anything to do with self-defense. The Baghdad killings were not about self-defense, were they? This according to R. Chuck Mason of the Congressional Review Service:

“While SOFAs do not generally provide authority to fight, the inherent right of self-defense is not impacted or diminished either. U.S. personnel always have a right to defend themselves, if attacked and/or threatened, and a SOFA does not take away that right.”

In his research, Mason reviewed 70 SOFAs and found none of them included an “authority to fight”.

Clearly, what is currently being negotiated between Iraq and the United States government, through the Bush Regime, is a treaty. A treaty that must be ratified by congress before it can be enforced

Clearly, what this is, is an attempt by the Bush Regime to circumvent the will of the people one more time. But this time I think they have gone too far. Entering into an international agreement without the consent of the American people is tantamount to treason.

Swiftboat Veterans for Shelley

Sounds like wacky Shelley Sekula Gibbs is spending that campaign cash with all the stops pulled this week for Texas CD 22. Or maybe I should say, it looks like she and someone else is. My phone is literally ringing off the hook. Today, after confirming that I was the person on his phone list, I listened to a live voice read a script to me all about how I didn’t want a carpetbagger for a congressman and that I should not vote for Pete Olson.

There was no question and answer period however. After the paid phone banker finished reading his script, he said “Thank you for listening”. At which I replied, “Well wait-a-minute here, who do I vote for?”

What was his reply?

“Click.”

I guess that was a stupid question.

Or maybe it was a question asked to a guy being paid by someone who doesn’t want their helping hands showing up on the Sekula Gibbs campaign finance reports.

Then I checked my voicemail, where I discovered that I got a robocall from John O’Neill.

Remember John O’Neill? One of those guys who smeared John Kerry’s military record so that his candidate, George “Chickenhawk” Bush could have a 2nd term? Well it sounds like John is doing a bang-up business selling his name and his message to anyone who has the campaign lucre to buy it. Enter Shelley Sekula Gibbs. Here is the message that I heard, transcribed:

"This is John O’Neill, I was a swiftboat veteran in Vietnam. In 2004 I helped defeat John Kerry’s lies about us and our military. I’ve watched the runoff for the 22nd congressional district. I’m shocked by Pete Olson’s false claims about Shelley Sekula Gibbs, like she doesn’t support the military. I know her personally. Her father, grandfather and seven uncles are veterans. During her 20 year career as a doctor Shelley has often given free medical care to veterans. Please friends, join me again as you did in defeating John Kerry in 2004. Teach the Washington lobbyists behind Olson that the 22nd congressional district can’t be bought for 'DC Pete' with Washington money. Vote for Shelley Sekula Gibbs."

Irony, it seems, has no limits.

Here we have Sekula Gibbs, whose entire personal military experience involved listening to the stories told to her by her father and uncles, being defended by a swiftboat veteran as he attacks a fellow veteran. A fellow Navy veteran, no less.

It’s amazing how many friends money will buy, isn’t it? I suspect that O’Neill hasn’t begun to smear. He probably has a long list of recordings to make this year to smear fellow veterans, Democratic or Republican, it doesn’t really seem to matter.

So wacky Shelley’s message, crafted for the truly confused, goes out this weekend to God knows how many households.

Again, money appears to be no object, and call after call is probably being made to Democratic households and to households of registered voters who HAVE ALREADY voted this past week (as I have), with that information completely available to the public for 5 dollars and a smile.

Shelley’s people might be awash in cash to spend, but they don’t seem to be awash in brains to use.

But that’s OK, I prefer a potential Republican in the general election to be cash-rich and intelligence-poor.

And let’s hope that this phone strategy works for SSG, just as the swiftboat strategy worked for Dubya four years ago. A mindless, confused phone message for mindless, confused Republican voters. Because we need Shelley Sekula Gibbs on the ballot this fall, because truth to tell, she simply scares the bejesus out of some people.

And entertains the rest of us to no end.

Fort Bend School Board Mulls Over Deficit Spending

Well, not really. The issue was placed before the board in their annual budget process by Superintendent Tim Jenney. From FortBendNow:

“‘What’s the board’s collective or individual position on deficit funding?’ Jenney asked.”

And that’s as far as it got. Just about to a man and woman, the idea was firmly rejected by school board members.

“This is a little scary”, “That’s going to change the perception of a responsible board”, “This is not a trend I’d like to see happen”, and “You ain’t gonna get my vote” were the varied responses.

In the past, the district budget has always counted on an increase in revenue because of growth. More houses built, more families, more children, more students, more revenue to Fort Bend ISD from the state. Yet this past year, growth fell below projections, and while it is difficult to see into the future, all you have to do is read the paper to see that the economy is slowing nationally.

And it would seem that the “Half Empty” outlook on life might be an appropriate one for the local school districts.

Plan for the worst.

Unfortunately the damage has already been done and planning for the worst is all but impossible. In their Republican zeal to slash local taxes so the local electorate will gorge themselves on their saved $180 dollars per household per year, the past board of trustees has agreed to placing a knife at the present board’s throat.

Once you cut taxes, it’s kind of hard to get that back.

And hoping to stay in the black with revenue from this tightfisted state that so devalues education, when your numbers can’t support it, is a fool’s errand.

Chickens, meet roost.

Jimmy Cancels Out Bill; Bill Erupts on Superdelegates

Of the 796 (or is it 795?) superdelegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention, two of them are living Democratic ex-presidents. That would be Bill Clinton, from a state that Hillary Clinton won, and Jimmy Carter, from a state that Barack Obama won.

And now it looks like Jimmy Carter has all but declared his support of Barack Obama, effectively canceling out the presidential vote.

Well that is how I read it. You be the judge. Quoting Jimmy Carter, from CNN:

“My town, which is home to 625 people, is for Obama, my children and their spouses are pro-Obama. My grandchildren are also pro-Obama. As a superdelegate, I would not disclose who I am rooting for but I leave you to make that guess.”

I never knew that Jimmy Carter could be so mysterious and coy.

So with ex-presidents now evenly split, it looks like it is going to be up to the rest of those undeclared people, my congressman included.

But really, if Bill Clinton is going to be doing any more good for his wife with these superdelegates, he might think about doing some “chilling” of his own. Like when he antagonized a Hillary Clinton (former Bill Richardson) supporter with an alleged red-faced finger-pointing tirade over her ill-received comment vis-à-vis James Carville’s “Judas remark” this past Easter. Here is what happened, from the San Francisco Chronicle:

“Rachel Binah, a former Richardson delegate who now supports Hillary Clinton, told Bill how ‘sorry’ she was to have heard former Clinton campaign manager James Carville call Richardson a "Judas" for backing Obama.”

“It was as if someone pulled the pin from a grenade.”

“‘Five times to my face (Richardson) said that he would never do that,’ a red-faced, finger-pointing Clinton erupted.”

“The former president then went on a tirade that ran from the media's unfair
treatment of Hillary to questions about the fairness of the votes in state caucuses that voted for Obama. It ended with him asking delegates to imagine what the reaction would be if Obama was trailing by just 1 percent and people were telling him to drop out.’”

“‘It was very, very intense,’ said one attendee. ‘Not at all like the Bill of earlier campaigns.’”

My thought is that now that Bill can’t help Hillary Clinton’s cause any more by casting his canceled vote, he might think about not alienating his wife’s declared superdelegates any more than absolutely necessary.

On Being Nice to Democrats

Democrats love to criticize. Texas Democrats often hone this skill to a fine edge because on top of being Democrats, they’re also ornery cusses. Now in researching for this piece, I searched through blog reports of individual experiences at the county conventions. My goal was to isolate all of the complaints.

Oh the complaints we all heard last weekend.

Mainly, I think, we heard about conventions that went overly long, lasting into the wee hours of the next day. My guess, based on no data whatsoever, is that these experiences were restricted to the metropolitan areas that were ill-prepared to handle the crowds, or thought they were prepared, but weren’t. I think that is going to happen from time to time.

But to my surprise, after hearing all of the complaining, for the most part, my research led me to very uplifting pieces written by actual people on the scene. I pick this report, found at “Who’s Playin’?” as a representative of what I was finding over and over again. This is a perfectly delightful recounting of the day. In particular, I liked this:

“Most of the party volunteers avoided buttons and t-shirts – including myself. It’s not to knock anyone who did wear these things, but over the past couple of weeks, I came to realize that folks were paying close attention to who supported who, and using that as a basis to assume there were ulterior motives in every scenario.”

That’s how I saw it as well. At my county convention, where I participated as a volunteer, I also found it to be the case that whoever you supported for president, the goal of the day was to have a fair convention. No parlor tricks. No games. Those things, let’s just say, fell entirely under the purview of the delegates, where things like that actually belong.

But, uniquely, now I come to find two vastly different reports of the very same convention.

In a review of the Fort Bend County convention in neighboring SD 17, one author writes a very gracious report on the volunteer staff and elected leadership. The writer presents a simple acknowledgement that these people were giving up their personal time to get this very necessary chore taken care of. The post has some really nice things to say about Democrats. Things like this:

“We owe much gratitude to Credentials Committee Chair Skip Belt, who shouldered the responsibility for his committee’s review and resolution of the few challenges brought forward in SD 17. We also appreciate Temporary Secretary Thomas Mudd and Permanent Secretary Keasia Daniels, whose diligence with the volume of paperwork on all the Delegates and Alternates coming from the precinct level and those advancing to the State have been critical to our process. And we thank Merdie Robertson for stepping up to manage the Nominating Committee that selected our At-Large Delegates. We are especially grateful to Len Goff’s 90 year-old mother who delivered a very inspirational prayer to get us started with the day.”

Then there is this report, a rather unique recounting of the very same county convention. Unique in that I could not find anything positive in the reporting. No, that’s not right. I did find in it this very positive comment on the convention:

“Sign-in was well-organized”.

But as for the rest of the piece, I have to ask myself if these two people actually attended the same convention.

Ah, you say, obviously we are talking about two reports from two people who support different presidential candidates. And in that you would be wrong.

Both reports come from individuals who support the same candidate.

Go figure.

That’s MISTER Half Empty, Bub

You will never guess who just got called a “prominent blogger” by one of the Republicans running for US Congress in Texas CD 22?

Nope, wrong, not Ariana Huffington, but good guess.

Wrong. Not Markos Moulitsas. And that, by the way, was a terrible guess.

Me. Half Empty. My blog.

I am a prominent blogger. Wait, let me type that again with emphasis: I am a prominent blogger.

Which of the two Republicans fighting it out for the ill-fated opportunity to run against Nick Lampson finally recognized the greatness of me? Pete Olson. I swear it’s true.

I first became aware of my new status when I read Susan’s morning posting today. It is a good one on how candidate Pete Olson has himself so intertwined with the benefactors, beneficiaries and political consultants that were once the country of none other than Tom “The Hammer” DeLay, that we can’t really decipher which end is Pete’s and which is Tom’s.

Further on down she mentioned an email that she received from Pete Olson saying that the Democrats want Shelley Sekula Gibbs to win because she’ll be easier to beat in November.

No kidding, I thought to myself. What a brilliant plan. Then I read on.

“As proof of this valuable information, he quotes an unnamed "prominent" blogger who says, ‘I want Shelley Sekula Gibbs to win because she will not only be the easiest candidate for Lampson to defeat in November, but also because we all should be in for a few laughs between now and then.’”

I read it over again. It sounded familiar. Heeeeey, isn’t that what I posted 2 days ago? It is! Right here!

Here is what he said in the email (thanks Susan):

“Democrats are now opening (sic) stating that they would prefer to have Shelley as the nominee. Just yesterday, a prominent local Democrat blogger wrote this on his Website:” (see above).

So according to Pete Olson, Half Empty is “a prominent local Democrat blogger”.

Oh, Pete.

If you only knew. Yes the Chron sometimes picks up my blog and posts a link to it on their Opinion page under their “Blog Watch: What they're saying around town”. But by and large, Pete, I have about 6 readers.

Maybe 7 now, huh?

But that’s alright Pete, I’ll be prominent for you if that’s what you need.

I have to laugh. I’ll bet the only reason that Pete, or one of his DeLay Drones, took a look at my blog through the Chron link (a safe assumption, I think) is that the Chron shortened the title I gave it from “Texas Primary Runoffs: Oh, To Be A Republican” to “Oh, To Be A Republican”. I am betting that I got most of my traffic from that from Republicans who were very curious why someone, anyone, would ever put that exact sentence out on the internets.

I can’t get the feel of it. What do prominent bloggers do? What do they say? Should I put a shingle outside the closet that I call my study that says “Half Empty - Prominent Democrat(ic) Blogger – Knock Then Enter”?

Should I throw away my bathroom deodorizer?

More to the point, does this “prominent blogger” stuff pay anything?