Friday, September 14, 2007

Mikal Watts Talks (Down) To University Democrats at UT.

I heard about it, and his Q & A with the Young Democrats at the University of Texas was characterized as pedantic as well as "bob and weave". “Yeah”, I said. “Maybe”. Well that was up until I was given a transcript of the Q &A session.

Jesus, please us. All I can say to Mikal Watts is “keep it up, guy. You just created a roomful of Noriega activists.”


Q: I would like to know how do you feel about a woman’s right to choose.

A: Sure, a woman’s right to choose. I am against abortion except in the case of rape and incest and the life of a woman. That is a view that I hold because of when I believe that life begins.

There was lots more, the man likes to talk, but now we know the basis for his potential votes to deny women rights to decide what is best for themselves. A philosophical idea that cannot ever be proven. A belief really. This belief goes hand-in-hand with being against embryonic stem cell research. Watts claims to be “for stem cell research” but keeps dropping the “embryonic” part.

Q: I read in the Houston Chronicle that in a trial you were in, one time you paid off judges to alter the effects of that. Can you -- do you have anything to say about that?

A: Yeah, well, I guess the Karl Rove truck begins. Let me just tell you something. The people that we are going up against will swift boat you all day long, and they will continue to swift boat you, and I can assure you of a couple things. The people that we’re going up against -- you better be ready to win. If you’re going to a knife fight, don’t let the other guy have the big knife. I can assure you that for the last 20 years, I have fought the fights against the large corporations. I have fought the fights for the people who that weren’t flamethrowers -- on behalf of the people of Texas that frankly are lucky that they have a match. And we have got to be ready. Because I don’t care about what they’re gonna make up this time, what they’re gonna make up next time, it’s coming, and we’ve got to be ready to fight back.

You said a bundle Mike. Swift boaters will be all over him like white on rice. That he is a rich trial lawyer is such a hot button with Republicans. He’ll be so busy fending off these attacks that his message will be drowned out. You bet it’s coming, bubba. More:

The people of Texas want to hear about issues and they don’t want character assassinations. But I can tell you that the way that I handle that, is I tell my wife don’t watch the TV, don’t read the blogs, don’t read this, don’t read that, ok. I can take those blows, and will take them. Ok, and I’m ready to take those blows, but I’m ready to fight back. I told a joke about Karl Rove. He came down to Harlingen, Texas, with John Cornyn, to raise money, thereby giving rise to the joke that, you know, in South Texas we know about a guy named Dick Cheney, but at least when he comes he brings a shotgun; this guy brings a snake. [laughter] The Republican machinery – the Republican machinery -- will attack me, they will attack Rick, they will attack, anybody who’s a Democrat. It will come. But you better have someone who’s ready, willing, and able to fight back, and if we don’t, we’re gonna be in a world of hurt.

The people of Texas don’t want to hear about the issues. They want to know whether they can trust you to be their senator. They will eat this stuff up. Yes, the Republican machinery will attack Rick. They have to because their man’s story (and Watts’) pales in comparison to Rick’s. And what is all this about telling your wife don’t do this and don’t do that? Can she not make up her own mind what she reads and what she watches on TV? Oh, that’s right, women shouldn’t be choosers, men are the deciders. I have one word to describe Mikal Watts: Avatar. Look it up.

Q: Do you support, like what Barack Obama said, in the third debate, where you shift all the benefits of marriage, for both people who are in a heterosexual marriage currently and people that are homosexual. Shouldn’t all of the government, be, civil, civil unions, where everyone—keep marriage, just to religious authorities. Is that what you support? Where, in the current system, between civil unions just for homosexuals, and [unintelligible] where, you have a bill, saying “we officially support your marriage.”

A: I guess what I am saying is this: I think John Cornyn has wasted a Senate seat, ok. We got a lot of educated people in here. Can anybody point me to a single bill that John Cornyn offered that became law? The John Cornyn legislative achievement –the, what Texas got back for sending him up there for four and a half years. Can anybody point me to one bill? The reason you can’t, ok, ‘cause there’s only been two. One of them was to build a federal court house in Plano, Texas. The other one was to rename some building after a Republican. The reason you can’t, is your United States Senator has wasted five years, wasted five years, not caring about the priorities of people in Texas. About raising kids with health care, about educating our kids, about bringing home the bacon if you will. You know, “I’m against pork but bring home the bacon”, you know the old joke.

But the bottom line is what he has done is he’s gone on the floor of the United States Senate and he’s driven in those wedge issues- “we need a constitutional amendment for this, we need a constitutional amendment for that.” He talks about box turtles. Folks, this is the United States Senate. Less than 48 hours after the assassination of a federal judge’s spouse and parent, he went on the floor of the senate, trying to justify it, be it activist liberal United States judges. That’s not what the senate is about. That is not what the senate is about. So I do not favor wasting time in the United States Senate, passing legislation to drive wedges home. What I do support is stopping discrimination in the work place and other aspects of the United States, you
know, way of living.

Huh? Wha . . . ? Did the questioner just get dismissed? Did Watts ignore everything but the question mark at the end of the question? Young Democrats don’t like being dismissed. This was obfuscation at its worst. They didn't let him off the hook.

Q: So basically, uh, to summarize, [unintellible], what you’re saying is that you don’t support civil unions, ‘cause homosexuals have all the rights that people, as heterosexuals you know, [unintellible]. Is that a correct characterization?

A: No, it’s not. [Unintellible crowd comments.] What I’m saying is just the reverse. That is, whatever protections against discriminations, need to exist for both.

Q: So then why wouldn’t that, you know, why wouldn’t that afford everyone the favor of that’s afforded to all… the same inalienable rights.

A: Which rights are you talking about that I am confusing you with? I’m sorry.

Q: Well, I mean, I don’t have anything particular right now.

A: Well, I can’t think of any, I can’t think of any either. I think that people are born in this country as a citizen and they’re all entitled to the same rights, all entitled to the same protections. And frankly, I don’t think those rights and those protections differ based upon your sexual orientation.

Oh. My. God. Can we get a direct answer to a direct question here?

Even I, a lowly blogger could have come up with a better answer than that. Here is what I just heard Mikal Watts say in answer to this earnest Young Democrat's question:

"I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because, uhmmm, some people out there in our nation don’t have maps and uh, I believe that our, I, education like such as uh, South Africa. . . "

As Wayne Campbell says, “Asphinctersayswhat?”

Thank you Mikal. Thank you just for being you.

Party on, Mikal.


Anonymous said...

I've spent the last two days in a sick fog. Woke up this morning thinking all was clear, then I read this. Isn't Mikal Watts a sucessful multi-millonaire attorney?? So, I guess the fact that I can't make heads or tails out of anything he said means I'm still in a fog. Surely it can't be him (can it?).

John McClelland said...

Whatever inkling I had about Watts being a choice for me just went out the window since he can't answer a direct question, even so much as creating a message. I hope this Q&A won't be reflective of his entire campaign, but it doesn't look good.