At the Chris Bell for Texas Senate Headquarters Grand Opening

In the build-up to his SD 17 special election runoff race that will end in just 3 weeks, Chris Bell is opening up campaign headquarters all over the senate district, which gerrymanders its way along the Gulf Coast from the Texas-Louisiana border, takes a right after passing Freeport and hooks through Brazoria County up to Fort Bend County.

Today a Grand Opening celebration took place at his Fort Bend County headquarters.

A small but dedicated group of supporters helped him celebrate the opening along with nearly all of the Democrats who hold office in and around Fort Bend County.

I took photos.

I took video.

Here is video number one. I apologize in advance for the shaky picture. I was not in the best place to take the shots that I took, and even had to hold the camera over my head at times. Richard Morrison, appointed the master of ceremonies for the afternoon because, he said, of his recent election into county office, introduced Fort Bend County Constable Ruben Davis, and Congressman Al Green.

Then Chris Bell spoke.



Nick Lampson was running late, but finally showed up just as Chris Bell was winding down his speech. Here is Nick Lampson showing support, finding out about when Election Day was, and recalling his own runoff race in December 1996 against Republican Steve Stockman.

One thing I am going to miss about Nick Lampson, other than the fact that sometimes I had my congressman vote my way, is that thing that he does with his voice. That thing that got Howard Dean in so much trouble several years back.

Nick does it just right.

Nick Lampson’s Miscalculation Revealed in the Numbers

Now when Harry S Truman uttered this memorable quote, “When given a choice between a Democrat who votes like a Republican, and a Republican, voters will vote for the Republican every time,” he really did not have Nick Lampson in mind at all.

But he might as well have.

Because Nick Lampson, who ran against a write-in candidate in 2006, found himself between a rock and a hard place when he took office.

He was a centrist Democrat elected by a bare majority in a decidedly right wing-dominated congressional district.

How do you get yourself re-elected in a congressional district whose boundaries were personally redrawn in 2003 by Tom DeLay himself? You can hope for the demographics to shift in two years, or you can do what Nick Lampson finally calculated: bring money into the district, excel in constituent services, and vote with the Republicans whenever you can.

Whenever you can. If a bill is doomed to failure, vote with the Republicans. This, in combination with the other two was a calculation that could produce a winning year for Nick Lampson.

And then along came the FISA bill. The bill that not only extended the extreme measures that the Bush regime granted itself to spy on American citizens, but also made it impossible for these citizens to redress colluding telecommunications companies in its courts. Nick Lampson voted with a majority of Republicans to pass this heinous bill, and we Americans collectively lost some of our 4th Amendment rights.

In that vote, Nick Lampson enraged the left wing voters of his party.

But in Nick’s calculation was this: who are the left wing going to vote for if not for Nick? Nick was unopposed in the March primary. He was the Democratic Party nominee, and the only alternative would be to vote for Pete Olson, a Phil Gramm acolyte.

So we had no choice, and anyone who simply fails to cast their vote either way is simply howling into the wind.

Apparently that is not how some of those of us in the left wing of the party felt.

Looking today at the Fort Bend County portion of CD 22 (because Harris County has yet to post their precinct canvass reports), I arrived at the not so startling conclusion that Nick Lampson just may have miscalculated on two fronts.

The Republican votes he hoped to attract were few and far between, and the Democratic votes that he hoped to retain may have been less numerous than his vote totals could withstand.

I put it on an Excel spreadsheet. I listed all Fort Bend County precincts that fall within CD 22, and recorded the votes for Lampson, Olson, Obama, and the total ballots cast in each precinct.

To get an idea of the number of Republican voters who voted for Lampson, I subtracted the number of votes that Obama got in each precinct from the number of votes that Lampson received. A positive number resulted in 81% of the precincts, but this vote total was only 1,984 voters, or 1.4% of the total votes cast.

Now in many countywide races, 1.4% would have been enough to put the candidate over the top. Fort Bend county is a 51:49 Republican to Democrat county right now. But this didn’t happen in Nick’s case.

And I think the reason it didn’t happen was the left wing undervote.

Now I vote a straight unadulterated Democratic ticket. I do. But I am acquainted with others in my party who did not. I heard more than just a few confess that they voted a straight Democratic ticket when they went to the polls, but then deselected Nick Lampson when presented with the next eSlate screen.

Rather than vote for his opponent, Pete Olson, they simply did not vote in this race.

Now that’s called an undervote with authority.

To find out the total number of Fort Bend County voters who did not vote in the CD 22 race, I added the vote totals of Olson and Lampson in each precinct and subtracted that from the total votes cast.

And the total Fort Bend undervotes for the CD 22 race was 7046, or 5% of the total votes cast.

Now does this number reflect a 100% left wing Democratic voter participation (or non-participation in this case)? Who knows? But even if half of the undervotes reflect voter disaffection with Nick Lampson, this undervote represents a nuclear explosion in a wind storm. An explosion that undoes any effect that the wind has on anything.

So is this the story? Nick’s failure to garner more Republican votes was exacerbated by left wing voters who withheld their votes from him?

Maybe so.

All I know is that in Fort Bend County Nick Lampson lost to Pete Olson by exactly 6000 votes. He improved on this number by 1,984 Republicans, but may have suffered the loss of 7000 or so votes that were cast in neither direction.

That, and a 1% difference in voter party preference cost him re-election.

Now here’s the question: who will we see coming up to the CD 22 plate in 2010? Will it be a sadder but wiser Nick Lampson?

Or am I just dreaming this whole thing up?

NRCC Lies, Pete Olson Approved of That Message

Is it any wonder that you don’t hear a peep from Pete Olson about the recent NRCC hit piece against Nick Lampson? The piece is running on several TV channels in the Houston media market and has raised eyebrows of those of us who watch what our congressman does, and what he doesn’t do.

Take a gander at the hit piece in this You Tube embed. Hit the pause button when you see the photo of the military jet taking off. You see in the lower left corner their citation of the house vote of the bill that Nick Lampson supposedly voted against on December 17, 2007.



Interesting huh? Now take a look here at his actual vote on HR 2764.

So shall we say that the NRCC ad is “inaccurate”?

Shall we say that it is an outright lie that is provable by public record? Something that Pete Olson wishes he had for his explanation on why it was that it was not he who voted in that Connecticut special election in 2003?

Kay Bailey Hutchison is the one that pushed that bill through her committee. She was approached by Alastair Rami who recorded his conversation with her, and asked her why some ads were saying that the bill inadequately funded the military.

Here is the conversation courtesy of BurntOrangeReport and You Tube



Now, I didn’t see the connection, exactly, with the inadequate funding claim and how the ad is inaccurate in that as well. I want to speculate that the version I have is brand spanking new. But it was nice to see that Kay Bailey Hutchison was so easy to set up against Olson and the NRCC.

I also thought that it was nice to see that the NRCC thinks that putting a tax on private health insurance is a bad, bad idea. Nice because it is something that John McCain thinks is a very good idea.

Odd, isn’t it? Usually the Republican Party is the party that has all their ducks in a row and stand arm in arm in solid agreement with each other, and it’s the Democrats that often look like buffoons as they disagree with everyone else, especially those in their own party.

Are we seeing yet another example of role reversal here?

Pete Olson Blames Lampson for Virginia Voter Fraud Investigation

In his latest fit of silliness, Pete Olson has laid the blame for being investigated for fraud in Virginia squarely at the feet of Nick Lampson. From an article in today’s Fort Bend Now:

“Olson called the allegation a ‘smear’ orchestrated by his opponent, incumbent Nick Lampson (D-Stafford), through a Democratic political action committee, the Lone Star Project.”

And later in the article:

“Olson also said that although the allegations came from the Lone Star Project, the Lampson campaign was behind the effort. He claimed to have seen ‘a document from Lampson’s campaign’ showing the allegations originated with Lampson. Olson did not provide a copy of that document to reporters at the press conference.”

And finally, this:

“’I now see him for what he is – a classic politician that cares more about getting re-elected than representing the values of the people he represents.’”

Now here’s my take.

I wish to God it was true. I wish to God that we fair-minded Democrats had as much gall, and as much go-for-the-throat instincts as our Republican counterparts do. The fact is, Olson’s position, ethics-wise, calls on him to accuse Lampson’s campaign for acts that are more closely associated with his own party’s operatives. The fact is, Olson is now accusing Lampson of behaving like a Republican.

I know Nick Lampson, and there is something you get about him: Nick Lampson only behaves like a Republican when he casts his vote with them.

And he does that sometimes.

That is not to say that the Lampson campaign has not glommed on to this ethics windfall that allows them to further compare Pete Olson to former Congressman Tom DeLay. They have. It took them about a week, but they finally started talking about Matt Angle’s Virginia criminal complaint against Pete Olson.

“Did Pete Olson commit a felony? All signs point to yes but the criminal investigation that was opened in Fairfax County this week will decide.

Prosecutors were quick to move on a felony complaint that was filed after evidence was discovered showing Pete Olson (with the same addresses and signature of candidate Olson) voted and maintained voter registration in Connecticut and Virginia. Voter fraud is a felony in both states.”

And so on.

The DCCC also chimed in with a hit piece that I have seen played during prime time. It’s actually one of their best hit pieces, tying Pete Olson to McCain’s recent comments on voter fraud and then to Tom DeLay:



Then Olson had his press conference.

And then, the Lampson campaign answered with a video response:



On October 3rd, a millennium ago in terms of political campaigns, Burnt Orange Report, citing a non-partisan polling organization Cook Political Report, rated the CD 22 race as a “toss up.”

My guess is that Pete Olson hopes that that is still the case.

My guess is that it isn’t.

Is Pete Olson Guilty of Voter Fraud?

Voter Fraud. A Republican mantra these days if ever there was one. To the extent that Indiana now has a law on the books, upheld by the US Supreme Court, that allows it to require that voters present a photo ID at their polling place to verify their identity.

To make sure that they aren’t voting fraudulently.

Like, apparently, Pete Olson did in 2003. Yes, that Pete Olson, the guy who is the Republican nominee to run against Nick Lampson for his Texas CD 22 seat in the US Congress.

That Pete Olson.

It is all in a Lone Star Project email blast that is summarized in the current posting at the Lone Star Project’s website.

The Lone Star Project has papers that they say prove that in 2003, Pete Olson voted in the 2003 Virginia general election, but also voted that year in a special election in Newtown, Connecticut. This based on the fact that he owned property in Newtown. And before that, voted in Virginia.

Virginia state law strictly forbids its residents from being registered to vote in Virginia AND another state. Something Pete Olson has to answer for.

Because, according to Lone Star, that is a felony offense in Virginia.

As it should be.

Hey, I own property in California, but I never, ever even considered registering to vote there based on that residence address.

That would be wrong.

And Pete Olson should know better (and probably does).

Nick Lampson Opens Mobile Office for Hurricane Victims

When my congressman, Congressman Nick Lampson votes in congress, he sometimes votes with the party of the Dark Side, and when he does that you hear about it from me. But everyone has always praised Nick Lampson for his excellent constituent services record, and this time I think I need to give credit where credit is due: Nick Lampson is doing a stellar job for hurricane Ike’s victims.

It’s in The Chron today, and I also received a message from Boyd Richie, Chairman of the Texas Democratic Party extolling the efforts of Nick Lampson and his district staff.

Lampson, whose congressional district boundaries encompass the I-45 corridor – the freeway that Hurricane Ike took – secured the mobile communications unit owned by the House of Representatives that includes 225 Wi-Fi capable laptop PCs and 225 cell phones, and a satellite uplink truck. The unit is parked outside the American Legion Hall at 11702 Galveston Rd, Houston, TX across the street from Ellington Field. Between the hours of 9:00 AM and 7:00 PM hurricane victims can come in and use the system to apply for FEMA housing assistance. FEMA will pay for a one month hotel stay for families whose homes are uninhabitable, but they have to apply.

Nick Lampson is providing the means for them to do this.

Now the occurrence of disasters during an election season ironically seems to favor incumbent candidates. There are a couple of theories why this is so. First challenger activities are curtailed after a disaster hits – their efforts seem inappropriate. And second, incumbents are seen working the problem and helping the community with all of the government resources at their disposal. For the most part, incumbents here in Red Texas are Republicans. But Nick Lampson, a Democrat, is clearly an exception.

And luckily, he seems to know how to deliver the goods when disaster strikes.

Texas And Its Love Affair With Guns

Look at what came into my inbox today: an email from my congressman telling me about a Town Hall meeting to be held tonight, celebrating gun owners’ rights to keep and bear arms.

Nick Lampson, you will recall, is a card-carrying member of the National Rifle Association, and this allows him to be associated with right-leaning gun-toting constituents of CD-22.

You notice he repeats how he supported the recent Supreme Court decision which struck down the District of Columbia’s anti-gun ordnance by essentially cutting out the whole reason why it is such a good idea to keep and bear arms. The Supremes did this to the 2nd Amendment.

Leaving Americans only the bad reasons to keep and bear arms.

But that’s OK, this is Texas after all. You have to make allowances for gun-totin’ tobacco chewin’ constituents who also vote.

Why am I harping on this once again? It has to do with the timely bit of news coming out of the tiny Harrold Independent School District in Harrold, Texas [map]. Harrold is a one-horse town just off US 287 in North Texas. It seems that their board of trustees has just OK’d a district policy change that allows teachers to carry concealed weapons during the school day.

Now wait. They didn’t just go into this all helter-skelter (sorry perhaps a poor word choice), they put some thought into this. The teachers must be licensed to carry concealed weapons and take a course in “crisis management and hostile situations,” and must use ammunition that is less prone to ricochet.

Their reason? They are 30 minutes away from police protection, and right next to the hustle and bustle of US 287 which brings all sorts of elements up north from . . . Wichita Falls.

So now that we don’t keep and bear arms because having a well-maintained militia is a good idea, we keep, bear, and wear arms in school buildings. Arms that don’t shoot bullets that ricochet. I guess, ammo made of very soft materials like soft expanding lead.

Now that is what I call a grand idea.

We replace minimally paid armed police and sheriff’s deputies with minimally paid armed school teachers.

In addition, I think students would probably think twice about sassing back over a low grade they received if they knew that their teachers are packing heat.

This all reminds me once again of the immortal words of Senator Tip O’Neill:

“All politics is local.”

Drilling for Oil In North America

Today is a red letter day when I get an email from my congressman and see a piece in the Austin American-Statesman about my US Senate candidate, and both of them tell you the same thing: we should open up all of our offshore continental shelves to oil and gas exploration.

Here is what Nick Lampson (TX 22) said in his email:

“I urged (Speaker Pelosi and the entire Democratic leadership) to allow debate and votes on legislation to increase domestic energy production, including the opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and Outer Continental Shelf. This legislation should not be blocked from consideration in favor of harmful efforts to increase taxes and stifle production on existing leases.”

So not only is my congressman in favor of opening up all areas of our continental shelf for oil and gas exploration and development, he wants the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR, pronounced AN-wahr) opened up as well.

Something that Republicans in the House and Senate have been whining about for years.

Noriega, however, stops short of supporting ANWR exploration and development:

“Rick Noriega supports lifting the ban on offshore drilling, allowing states to decide for themselves on drilling plans, but knows that we can’t just drill our way out of this problem, because the fact is the U.S. has 3 percent of world oil reserves and 25 percent of demand.”

Now that makes sense. Texas and other Gulf states have no problem having oil rigs drill in the outer continental shelf (OCS). We have hundreds of oil and gas production platforms out there right now. The grand majority of them can’t be seen from the beach because they are so far over the horizon.

The coastal shelf and slope of the Gulf Coast, you see, is very broad. Texas and its neighboring southern states have had an affinity to offshore drilling because of that and the fact that environmental protection was a foreign concept in these states’ governments in the past.

Not so the West Coast. The west coast continental shelf is very narrow. Every single oil production rig in the western OCS is visible from the beach. And not only that, the west coast experienced an oil well blow out in 1968, a blow out caused by poor drilling decisions.

So when Rick Noriega says that each state should be allowed “to decide for themselves on drilling plans,” that sounds good.

It’s just that it doesn’t happen. California opposed offshore federal lease sales in the past, but nothing came of it.

In the case of oil and gas exploration in federal waters, states don’t have bupkus to say about it.

Never did.

Now on this ANWR stuff, I wonder if anyone knows just what is involved here. If Prudhoe Bay is an example, then 10 years is a minimum period of time between spudding in the first exploration well, and turning the valve on the first production. More likely, 15 years. So this isn’t an immediate solution to avoid 5 dollar gas, is it?

But this is exactly what oil companies and their lobbyists will tell you, and the Kool-Aid goes down smoothly for a majority of Americans.

The other thing that always gets my goat about ANWR rhetoric is that its production will go to make the US energy-independent. Truth is, it might help a bit, but only if the production is sold in the US. Truth is, it won’t be. How do I know this? Once a supertanker is loaded with Alaskan oil at Valdez Harbor it can, and does, go anywhere in the world. Alaskan oil is not reserved for American consumption.

So there’s your second cup of Kool-Aid: ANWR oil will make America energy-independent.

Nonsense.

But, and I always save the best for last (a journalist I will never be), the best part is the world OCS hydrocarbon exploration infrastructure is totally saturated right now. Every deep water rig that can possibly make hole is out there right now, making hole. Companies are screaming for rigs and crews to explore for new fields and develop existing ones. They just can’t find any. This is driving the cost of leasing rigs through the roof. There is a massive program to build more rigs, but the point is, the infrastructure isn’t there right now.

So, sell all of the offshore leases you want, it will be years before they can be brought online. We don’t have the resources necessarily to explore for oil in additional offshore acreage right now.

I’d say that both Noriega and Lampson scored points today among the gas-guzzling public. It’s really a shame though, that this public demand is being fed by present-day economics rather than by long-term planning.

Wouldn’t it be best to keep this stuff in the ground while we develop an infrastructure based on alternative energy? Fossil fuel is a finite resource that is too precious a thing to waste on soccer moms who want 3 dollar gas to put in their SUVs again.

When it’s gone, it’s gone.

Pete Olson and Nick Lampson: Brothers in Guns

I couldn’t help but note the small irony that this morning Fort Bend Now is showing two headlines nearly side by side, but actually posted 4 hours apart:

“Lampson Endorses Supreme Court Decision on D.C. Gun Ban” posted around 11:30 AM on Thursday.

and

“Olson Applauds DC Gun Ban Decision” posted around 3:30 PM later that day.

Pete Olson, it will be remembered is the Republican nominee challenging Nick Lampson for the seat he currently holds in Congress.

So for those of us who interpret the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution as it was written, and not as Justice Scalia reinterprets it (“Militia? What militia”), we will have no representation on this issue in Washington, DC whoever wins in Texas CD 22 in November.

Frankly, this doesn’t surprise me. This is Texas, after all.

And this is one case where I know that Nick Lampson is truly in favor of the decision, and is not just saying this to obscure the differences between himself and his conservative challenger. Nick is a card-carrying member of the National Rifle Association.

One thing I do know, though, is that while Pete Olson talks the talk about the Supreme Court, he is fairly clueless on what constitutes a “strict constructionist” Supreme Court justice:

“I applaud the Supreme Court’s decision today to uphold American’s Second Amendment right to bear arms. Today’s 5-4 decision demonstrates the need for strict constructionist judges like Justices (John) Roberts and (Antonin) Scalia, who uphold the rights of American citizens as our founding fathers intended those rights to be enacted.”

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Then Fort Bend Now committed the same error that I saw again and again in the news yesterday, printing the false claim that this is the first time that there was a ruling on the 2nd Amendment:

“The ruling is being called ‘landmark’ by legal scholars who note that this is the first time the high court has conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791”

In a 1939 Supreme Court decision Re: United States v. Miller, the issue was decided, and correctly so. The inclusion of the words “well regulated militia” was not a fluke. They are part of the overall idea. An idea that these present-day “strict constructionist justices” clearly ignored.

But that pretty much goes along with what has historically transpired with regard to this issue. Here we have a 69 year old Supreme Court decision that ties the ownership of a gun to membership in a “well regulated militia,” and nothing . . . nothing changed until yesterday. Guns were owned and wars were fought by regular armies, not militias. But yesterday gun ownership magically became an individual right.

It’s almost like this whole thing has been both a skeleton in our country’s closet that no one talks about, and a veiled gentlemen’s agreement that has persisted through the generations.

Applaud and endorse all you want, this decision is going to have some far-reaching effects. Scalia et al. have opened the Pandora’s Box that has been guardedly kept shut since the late 18th century.

The big winners: gun and munitions manufacturers and the NRA. The big losers: everyone else.

Nick Lampson: An Obama Superdelegate; Al Gore: A Super Cut-Up

Now on my update to yesterday’s post where I discovered, belatedly, that Texas’ CD 22 congressman, Nick Lampson, had indeed changed his superdelegate status from uncommitted to Obama I mentioned that it took place on June 10th, but I didn’t cite the source. I found it here.

This is not only the right move, in terms of getting the Democratic Party together, it is also the correct one. Correct in that Congressman Lampson represents a district that voted for Barack Obama by a 6.8% margin – 53.4% to 46.6%.

This despite the sadly mistaken notions of Linda Starr, who vowed not to support this superdelegate in his re-election campaign if he were to vote against the wishes of his constituents.

Didn't happen.

Ms. Starr should know that Nick has provided plenty of reasons for his constituents to be put out by his votes, but this is not one of them. Nick votes with the people on this one.

Did anyone know that Al Gore was a tremendous speaker? He is. But now Al Gore turns out to be quite a cut-up as well. In his endorsement speech last night, this quotation is the one that summarizes so well why Democrats and Independents, and even a few thinking Republicans, should cast their votes for Barack Obama this November:

“If you bought poisoned lead-filled toys from China or adulterated medicine made in China, if you bought tainted pet food made in China, you know that elections matter. After the last eight years even our dogs and cats have learned that elections matter.”

Or you can watch the whole thing right here:



What a Supercut-up.

Al Gore Endorses Barack Obama . . .at Long Last

I got another email message from Al Gore today. Al has never hit me up for money and I was expecting that this wasn’t a plea for more of my unavailable cash, but an announcement, as I heard on the news, that he will appear with Barack Obama tonight in a Detroit Obama mass rally, and endorse his candidacy.

Yes, that’s right, 2 weeks after the nomination has been locked up all but in name, Al Gore has come out for Obama.

Better late than never, I guess.

Well, it might as well be Al Gore, since his 2000 running mate is licking the heels of John McCain.

Here is Al (I guess) wrote:

Dear Hal,

A few hours from now I will step on stage in Detroit, Michigan to announce my support for Senator Barack Obama. From now through Election Day, I intend to do whatever I can to make sure he is elected President of the United States.

Over the next four years, we are going to face many difficult challenges -- including bringing our troops home from Iraq, fixing our economy, and solving the climate crisis. Barack Obama is clearly the candidate best able to solve these problems and bring change to America.

This moment and this election are too important to let pass without taking action. That's why I am asking you to join me in showing your support by making a contribution to this campaign today:

https://donate.barackobama.com/gore

Oh well, forget that part about not asking for my unavailable money. I give what I can when I can without exhortation. But I know the harsh realities of being on the “they gave money before” list. You give, they ask for more.

So my former vice president is listed with Obama supporters. I guess I’m still waiting for my other superdelegate, Nick Lampson of TX-22 to make his decision known. But it’s not just me. Today I discovered this place where Obama supporters are pressing all of the undeclared superdelegates to make their stand.

Nick even has his own page.

Nick should know by now that the local right-wing evangelical crazies in his district are going to scream and howl no matter what he does, even if it is not until when he casts his Democratic superdelegate ballot in August.

And it’s not as if he can follow in the steps of Joe “I will caucus with the Democrats” Lieberman who then turned his back on his caucus.

I guess . . .

UPDATE: According to Lampson campaign manager Anthony Gutierrez (on 10 June - how did I miss it?) Nick has thrown in with the Barack Obama campaign. Mr. Gutierez went out of his way to let me know about my error and I never allow misinformation to last here (at least for very long). So, to summarize, Nick Lampson has become a superdelegate committed to the nomination of Barack Obama for President of the United States.

Now. . . duck Nick.

Clinton Supporters Pressure Swing District Superdelegates; Will Support Their Republican Opponents.

I have stayed away from this subject because, frankly, it sickens me. But here in Texas we have a group of feminist supporters of Hillary Clinton who are so strident in their support of their candidate, that they openly threaten to vote for John McCain should Barack Obama be, as they say, be “forced on them” by the DNC.

That or support a write-in candidate.

But now they, as reported in a blog by Linda Starr, are openly threatening not to support local superdelegates Nick Lampson (TX 22) and Charles Gonzalez (TX 20) and will support and vote for their Republican opponents. Says she:

“I’ve been contacting the HRC supporters and contributors, all of whom previously supported Nick Lampson in his bid to take Tom Delay’s old seat. These women are so incensed because they say Lampson could never have won without their volunteer help and financial assistance and they will vote Republican, if Obama is made the nominee because their own representative defied them.”

I just have to object here. On several levels.

First, I just want to point out that a lefty Democrat would never support a Republican candidate in anything. Starr, on her various blog appearances, seems to align herself with the left. So I have to say that either this is just so much huff and bluster, and an empty threat, or Starr or her sisters are not Democrats anymore.

In fact, Starr in this same blog piece mentions that she is “starting a new national women’s party for the specific purpose of electing women”. So that’s how you get a true majority: form a splinter group.

Second, need I point out that Starr and others of her ilk are saying that they intend to vote for a resolute anti-choice presidential candidate? I need to ask which one of the “feminist issues” surpasses the right of a woman to choose whether or not to have a child? And it isn’t just a four-year thing when they can have Hillary as president in 2012. When they help to elect McCain president this November, they will usher in an era when Roe v. Wade will be overturned. Justice John Paul Stevens, a pro-choice justice who turns a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court to a 4-5 minority whenever an abortion case comes before it, has made no bones about the fact that he wants to retire. He’s battling poor health, but clearly is hanging on in order to preserve women’s abortion rights.

With McCain in office, there goes a woman’s right to choose, and we are back to the bad old days of backroom botched abortions.

And third, I am suspicious why Starr lumps Lampson’s district, CD 22, with Gonzalez’ CD 20. This is again a new metric, I think. Boy, am I getting tired of new metrics.

While I don’t know how Charlie Gonzalez’ district went in the primary as far as the presidential race, I think that it’s safe to assume from its large Hispanic population that it went for Clinton. Gonzalez, however, has endorsed Barack Obama. Now that would irritate me, also. If my congressman was endorsing the candidate that my district did not support in the primary, I would be righteously irate. But how, pray tell, are these supposedly Democratic women hoping to bring Republican Robert Litoff (who has no campaign fund to speak of) a victory in November in a congressional district so heavily Democratic that Republicans did not bother to oppose Gonzalez in ’06, and he trounced his Republican opponent 65% to 32% in ’04?

Are they using some new metric to back up their threat?

Contrast that to Nick Lampson’s CD 22. Now Nick’s district IS a swing district and everyone knows it. Nick’s own votes in several key areas bear witness to the fact that he is trying to play to both sides of the aisle. But from the quote above, it would seem like Lampson has also gone the way of Charlie Gonzalez and thrown in with the Obama camp.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I heard it from the man’s own lips. He will remain uncommitted in this presidential dust up. I, and everyone else I know, assume that he will make his choice known when the winner is a foregone conclusion.

But now, here we have all these irate women gnashing their teeth at how Lampson needs to vote with his constituents. I quote:

“My whole point, if the superdelegates are willing to defy their constituents and vote for Obama for whatever reason, they are no longer representing their constituents interests (women’s suffrage), their constituents primary votes, or their will.”

Now MY whole point is this: if Nick Lampson were to bow to the will of his constituents he would now be supporting Barack Obama for President. I did the math. I did the grunt work and added up each and every vote in every precinct in CD 22. I reported on it here, here, and here. But for those of you who have Comcast as an ISP and don’t want to start another pageload, I’ll repeat myself. CD 22 snakes through parts of 4 counties (courtesy of Tom DeLay). Here are the county totals and the total totals.

Fort Bend County: 25,812 for Obama, 18,209 for Clinton

Harris County: 13,650 for Obama, 17,501 for Clinton

Brazoria County: 7,170 for Obama, 4,948 for Clinton

Galveston County: 5,440 for Obama, 4,814 for Clinton

CD 22 Totals: 52,072 for Obama (53.4%), 45,472 for Clinton (46.6%)

So I just have to ask: what metric allows Linda Starr to come to the conclusion that Nick Lampson would “defy” his constituents if he casts his super vote for Barack Obama?

Is it the metric that says if he doesn’t bend to the minority will they will be royally “pissed off” (her words)?. Well, OK, that’s fine. Be pissed off. Be angry that Barack Obama has the majority of delegates and seems to be inevitable.

Yell and scream.

Then, at the end, in the fall, let passions subside and let self-interest, logic, and, yes, party loyalty prevail. No true Democrat wants John McCain to be president. No feminist wants Roe v. Wade overturned. And most Americans want to put an end to the war in Iraq next year.

Yes, be angry. But then do as many of us who have a bone to pick with some of our Democratic candidates do.

Vote a straight Democratic ticket.

Only One Texas Congressman Is An Undecided Superdelegate

News came tonight that one of the two remaining Texas Democratic congressmen who has held himself in the undecided column has now declared allegiance.

On The Chron tonight is news that Ciro Rodriguez (Texas CD 23) has declared his support to the flagging campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Josh Rosenblum, Ciro Rodriguez’ congressional aide offered these words in explanation:

“A big reason is because his district voted so overwhelmingly for her, that's one of the biggest reasons.”

That’s a big reason. I’ve been waiting to hear this and frankly ask myself why it has taken so long. Ciro Rodriguez’ newly reconstituted district did vote for Hillary Clinton. His district was the victim of Tom DeLay’s twice in a decade redistricting. The US Supreme Court found in 2007 that the design of CD 23's district boundaries violated guidelines on drawing them based on racial distributions and ordered that new boundaries be drawn. Rodriguez subsequently won the CD 23 seat from DeLay’s stooge, Henry Bonilla, by a huge margin in a special election.

So that’s settled.

Now all we have to do is wait for Texas’ final uncommitted congressman, CD 22’s Congressman Nick Lampson, my congressman, to make his allegiances known.

Just one more Texas congressman.

Our Nick.

In a previous posting, I have pointed out to Nick and his staff that his district’s Democratic primary voters voted for Senator Barack Obama in the majority. In fact, I have provided the CD 22 breakdown in excruciating detail:

“CD 22 Totals: 52,072 for Obama (53.4%), 45,472 for Clinton (46.6%)”

So how about it? Ciro Rodriguez, the other Texas freshman congressman who has withheld his endorsement has weighed in, and based his presidential choice on his district’s preference. Is it not time for my superdelegate to respond in kind?

Will my congressman, Congressman Nick Lampson, honor the voters in his district, the majority of whom voted for Barack Obama in the March 4th primary, and do the honorable thing and throw in for Barack Obama?

It’s not the safe bet, mind you. Nick Lampson has a Republican constituency to worry about and there are lots of them. But I have to wonder whether the idea is to throw in for the guy the majority of your constituents want in the White House, or the one that Rush Limbaugh wants his beloved John McVader to run against in November.

Tough decision.

Naahhhhhh.

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?

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?

Texas Primary Runoffs: Oh, To Be a Republican

Texas primary runoff early voting starts Monday, March 31st. I’ll be there to exercise my vote, even if there is only a single item on the ballot. And in my case, there is only a single item on the ballot. But I’ll be there anyway.

It sounds like a very ho-hum deal, to have to vote for Texas Railroad Commissioner, and truth to tell, no one is banging my door down, shoving push cards in my face, or doing robocalls for either candidate.

It’s definitely not very exciting.

Some I know will rear up in protest, because for them having an effective public advocate on the Railroad Commission is paramount to their interests. Uppermost in their minds. And I give them credit for their advocacy. Yes, this is an important position and the only state-wide Democratic nomination still in contention.

But I can’t help but think that my, and everyone else’s appearance at the Democratic polls this coming week is going to be a flip-flop compared to what we had on March 4th. On March 4th, Democrats showed up at Fort Bend County polls to the tune of 1.8 times that of Republicans on the same day. 13% of registered voter showed up to vote Democratically compared to only 7% of registered voters to vote in the primary of the Dark Side.

Democrats were energized by the competition at the presidential level. For Republicans the issue had been all but decided, only needing Mike Huckabee to stop and get in line with the others.

Not so in the runoff.

While Democrats in my position in Fort Bend will go to the polls to vote for either Dale Henry or Mark Thompson in their statewide Railroad Commissioner runoff, Republicans, those that didn’t vote in the Democratic primary, anyway, still have a critical choice to make: who do they think will be able to beat Congressman Nick Lampson in November.

Oh, if only I could help them out.

I find myself in an unique position of being a cheerleader for Shelley Sekula Gibbs. She of the pink leggings, the wacky lady who came dressed as a shrimp for the Sugar Land Shrimp Festival, and as a . . . well some sort of European peasant girl for some other cultural festival. And finally, the one who won a special election running against an oriental herb doctor, a retired career military officer, an ex high school wrestler, a Libertarian and a former Lampson opponent from the old days.

Yes, although she lost as a write-in candidate against Nick Lampson in the general election, Shelley won the special election against that crew, with a runoff not needed, and finds herself in a runoff election this time against a new foe: former senatorial chief staffer Pete Olson.

Olson, I think, would be the one who could run a credible campaign against our moderate Democratic congressman. However, he handicaps himself, somewhat, in that he must now paint himself as the more conservative of the two Republicans, which makes things tough for him in November when he runs against Lampson, someone who will draw votes from both parties and the independents as well. If that’s how Olson wins the runoff, by convincing voters that Shelley is the least conservative, then that’s good news for Nick.

If on the other hand, Shelley wins based on her name recognition and successfully smearing a carpetbagger label all over Olson, once again, that’s good news for Nick.

That must be why Nick seemed to be so happy when he showed up at the SD 18 convention yesterday. For Nick, it’s definitely “Good news, better news”.

But I still find myself in Sekula Gibbs’ cheering section right up to the end. In that, I find myself in the curious position of being in complete agreement with the blogger who authors the ultra rightwing blog “Rhymes With Right”. He left a comment here a week or so ago, which I need to bring up front.

“Yes, a brief period relative to the time he has been out of the district. It's not like the man retired from the Navy six months ago after a 20 year career. And the reality is that Olson maintained no significant connection to the district during his time on the staff of Phil Gramm and John Cornyn, which constituted the bulk of his career outside of CD22.”

“And it may shock you to hear this, but just because i support the reelection of John Cornyn, whose work in the US Senate I consider to be quite good, does not mean that I accept his every political endorsement as if it were divine revelation.”

“I'll take the candidate I know and trust.”

So not only do he and I share a common profession in the teaching of eager young minds, yes RWR is a high school teacher, he and I also see eye to eye on this issue, but for completely different reasons.

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. RWR, an ardent Sekula Gibbs fan, wants her to win because he knows and trusts her.

Together, we make a great team.

TX 22: A Study In Base Appeal

Coming off of yesterday’s post on how my superdelegate, Nick Lampson of Texas Congressional District 22, should cast his uncommitted vote for the Democratic presidential nominee, I decided to take a re-look at what the Dark Side is doing in their runoff race.

It made the KTRK news (ABC Houston), with the story’s news clip and text found here. The race is building in contentiousness as Republicans Shelley Sekula Gibbs and Pete Olson are in an elbow contest to convince the Republican base voters just who is the most conservative of the two.

“She’s a flip-flopper,” is what Pete Olson seems to be saying when he points to a Planned Parenthood questionnaire that exposes Sekula Gibbs as a flaming baby killer. When confronted with the fact that she was once “pro-choice”, Sekula Gibbs attests to a “conversion in [her] heart”, pointing to that part of her anatomy. This is just the right thing to say when appealing to the evangelical neoconservatives that form the base of Dark Side Republicanism in CD 22. A veritable “Come to Jesus” line if ever there was one.

“He’s a carpetbagger,” is what Sekula Gibbs seems to be saying when she points to the fact that Olson is “residence challenged”. Olson, who has family roots in the Bay Area, was sent to CD 22 by the Washington establishment to put up a strong and well-funded opposition to Sekula Gibbs, who put on quite an embarrassing show in her 3-week stint in Washington at the close of 2006.

“I've been here for over 20 years. I've raised my family here, paid taxes here. I have a small business here, medical practice in Webster for over 20 years, and I'm very committed. I have very deep roots in the community and he just got here about six months ago.”

Not that that wouldn’t be an easy charge to duck. It really surprises me that Olson hasn’t beaten Shelley over the head with the fact that one can’t very well live in-district for 20 or so years AND be a naval aviator. Yes, while Shelley was expressing her teenage patients’ blackheads in Houston, Pete Olson was flying a P-3C Orion off of carriers in the Persian Gulf, looking for enemy submarines.

Or something like that.

That notwithstanding, Shelley’s death grip on Olson thus far is his carpetbagger status, something that didn’t work very well against Nick Lampson in 2006, either.

So in the main, what is going to matter in this runoff election in April is not who has lived here longest, but who is the most conservative. Because that is what is going to rile up the faithful neoconservative voters who will go out to the polls during what is arguably an historic year for Democrats to retake the country. Only those who have not been disillusioned by their own party, the true hard core activist Republicans who have not, nor would ever, vote in a Democratic primary are going to show up at the Republican voting booths this April.

Contrast that to Nick Lampson. Nick is sitting in the catbird’s seat. Unopposed in the primary, Lampson did not have to appeal to the Democratic base, or any base for that matter. Nick’s center aisle politics allow him to throw bones to either side at will. While Olson and Sekula Gibbs confine themselves to the courting of the right wing extremists of the Republican Party in CD-22, Lampson can concentrate on his appeal to independents, centrists, and moderate Republicans and Democrats, leaving the left wing of the Democratic Party to watch on and participate, or not.

The one thing that gets in the way of all of this is presidential politics. As Miya Shay concludes in her piece, the one external thing that is going to affect this race in November, despite the outcome for Republicans in April, is what happens in the Democratic Party on the run-up to the convention. Who the Democratic presidential nominee is will play heavily in this race, as well as in other heavily contested toss-up districts across the country.

Which candidate will be of the most help to Nick Lampson to defeat his Republican opponent in November? Indeed, to help any Democratic candidate in a close election? We’ve all heard about “Hillary’s negatives”. About how a Hillary Clinton nomination will polarize the country and draw Republicans out of their holes and hides to vote straight Republican tickets in November. Clinton’s partisans have written that there is no proof that this scenario is valid, and up to a couple of weeks ago, I’d have given them points on that argument. But not after March 4th. Not after hearing about registration changes in Pennsylvania. Not after there is documentation that Republicans cross over to vote in Democratic primaries for two conflicting reasons: 1) to get rid of “the Clintons” forever by voting for Obama, or 2) to vote for the weaker of the two candidates, Clinton, in their view, to face John McCain in November.

This is solid evidence for an anti-Clinton backlash that is primed to strike in November, should Hillary Clinton defy the current math, and become the Democratic presidential nominee.

This is food for thought for superdelegate Nick Lampson. Does he appease the Democratic party moderates and opt for Clinton? Especially now that so many in the media are saying that Obama made the wrong “Wright decision”? In doing so, does he stack the deck against himself in November? Or does he go with the progressive wing’s Obama candidacy, a move that is also supported by voter preference in his own congressional district, after what can only be called an Obama oratory coup?

Fun times for Nick Lampson.

Which Candidate Will My Superdelegate Opt For?

It recently dawned on me when I thought about it, that I have only one superdelegate. Here in Texas, having a superdelegate is a rarity, and were it not for the fact that Nick Lampson is a Democrat in what is now most likely a toss-up congressional district, I wouldn’t have any at all.

So I was wondering today about which candidate my superdelegate was going to throw in with and could find no indications anywhere. Nick is doing the typical Nick thing: holding his cards close to his chest.

My superdelegate remains uncommitted.

The only comprehensive list of Texas superdelegates is the one assembled by Phillip Martin on BOR. Martin is BOR’s unofficial “data guy”. Although the list was posted in mid-February, he keeps it updated as news comes out. Another place to look for the superdelegate count everywhere is at this site.

According to both sites, my superdelegate, Nick Lampson is one of only two congressmen in the Texas Democratic delegation to Congress to remain uncommitted. The other one, not surprisingly, is Ciro Rodriguez, the guy who unseated Henry Bonilla in an upset after the boundaries to CD 23 were redrawn by order of the US Supreme Court. Nick and Ciro, you see, find themselves in similar situations.

So I thought I would help out my superdelegate, help him to make his decision. I went around looking for someone who has it all figured out and found this site. I try not to reinvent the wheel if it’s not necessary. The site appears to be put together by some college students, and I thought that was kind of cute. It really is nice to see the next generation getting involved. For a while there I was beginning to think that we would be running out of voters when the last one born of my baby boomer generation kicks the bucket, but now that doesn’t appear to be the case.

So according to that site, it looks like Nick should opt for Hillary Clinton. But then I read a little further and realized that not only do they have it wrong about Nick’s November opponent, something that is not actually decided yet (although I hope they have correctly called it for Shelley), they got it wrong in their conclusion that Hillary should get his vote because SD 11 went for Hillary Clinton by 57% to 42%.

SD 11?

SD 11 has some overlap with CD 22, but not overwhelmingly so.

So no, that wasn’t going to do it for me, but the idea intrigued me. The site appears to have a Hillary Clinton bias, yet also seems to have signed on to the notion that a superdelegate should cast his or her vote according to the predominant wishes of their constituents.

So to help Nick Lampson come to grips with this important decision, I knew what I had to do. I had to get out the precinct reports from all four counties that CD 22 occurs in, and find the presidential candidate totals for all of the precincts that had Nick Lampson on their ballot.

Sheesh.

That’s over 200 precincts spread over 4 counties. Still, someone has to do it, so here you go Nick. Here is what I came up with:

Fort Bend County: 25,812 for Obama, 18,209 for Clinton
Harris County: 13,650 for Obama, 17,501 for Clinton
Brazoria County: 7,170 for Obama, 4,948 for Clinton
Galveston County: 5,440 for Obama, 4,814 for Clinton

CD 22 Totals: 52,072 for Obama (53.4%), 45,472 for Clinton (46.6%)

I don’t know, Nick, seems pretty cut and dried. Three out of four counties can’t be wrong.

Lampson Signs Petition to Bring SAVE Act to the House Floor

Interesting, huh? Nick Lampson, our Democratic congressman from Texas CD 22 has announced that he is going to oppose House Democratic leadership and sign a “discharge petition” to bring the Secure America Through Verification and Enforcement Act of 2007 (SAVE Act) out of its 7 committee hearings and onto the floor of the House for an up or down vote.

To-date, the discharge petition, which can be viewed here, has been signed by 168 legislators, 161 of them Republicans, and 8 of them Democrats. A total of 218 signatures are needed to get a majority in the House and force the SAVE Act to the floor of the House.

Now what could be on our congressman’s mind?

I have heard Nick Lampson speak on immigration and border security a few times and this doesn’t sound like what he was talking about.

What I have heard Nick Lampson say was that if we would simply enforce the laws that were already on the books, this would be quite enough to stem the flow of illegal immigration into the country.

Instead, what we have before us in the SAVE Act (HR 4048) is a measure that would boost border security by 1) increasing border patrol personnel, 2) allowing the use of military equipment (?), and 3) providing additional border surveillance (aerial and remote) . There are other things, such as giving aid to Indian tribes whose reservations abut the border. One of the big things in SAVE is the so-called employer responsibility provisions. Employers will be held to account for hiring illegal aliens by verification of their identification papers.

That last bit gave me a clue on why Lampson is doing what he is doing.

I have also heard Nick Lampson say that any immigration reform act was not going to pass any time soon. I suspect that he includes this one as well. The reasons are two-fold:

1. Republicans love to wave the immigration red flag. Without it they have to talk about Iraq and the economy. The result is that they have whipped up this as a major fanatical issue that plucks the Mexican-hating heartstrings of Republican voters. With Nick not only co-sponsoring the SAVE Act, and signing the discharge petition, his fall opponent has little to beat his or her breast about with regard to his record on immigration.
2. As mentioned above, this act, or any other immigration act like it, doesn’t have a prayer of passing. Democrats oppose this on several different levels. Republicans, or some of them anyway, know that the employer accountability/verification portions of the bill will devastate some important, some say strategic, industries. Like agriculture. Like construction.

Yes, America’s economy, as it now stands, depends upon a dynamically porous border.

So here is what I am guessing why Lampson is backing this so vigorously: it can’t hurt because it hasn’t a snowball’s chance in H-E double hockey sticks of passing let alone getting to the House floor, and Nick gets on record as being in favor of something that 161 Republican co-signatories also favor.

Take that Dr. Sekula Gibbs. Have a nice day, Pete “Carpetbags” Olson.

Now, I just hope that I am right on this. . .

Texas CD 22: Runoffs Gone Wild

As anyone who pays attention already knew, the 10 little Republicans who crowded stage after stage this primary season battling for the Republican nomination for congressman in “The Fighting 22nd” have now been whittled down to the two everyone expected to get to a runoff: Shelley Sekula Gibbs and Pete Olson.

Surprises still abound though: Sekula Gibbs came in with a much weaker showing than I ever would have expected, getting only 16,681 votes or 29.72% of the vote. Olson did a little better than I expected, with 11,630 votes, or 20.72% of the vote.

Sekula Gibbs’ totals are the highest, in my opinion, because she is the candidate with built-in name recognition. Her write-in race against Nick Lampson in 2006 was all in the news. People had to learn how to activate the write-in utility of the Dial-A-Vote eSlate system that our county commissioners foisted upon Fort Bend County voters, then had to get her name spelled in some reasonable way so the elections officers could interpret “voter intent” (although to this day I still have trouble figuring out how they knew that the word “dragonc_ _ t ” meant Shelley).

Olson’s numbers are fairly high for someone who had nine fingers pointed at him with nine voices uttering the words “Stranger! Stranger!” all day. One can imagine that to these voters, that doesn’t matter so much. What mattered, I think, is that he wasn’t Shelley.

Because there’s that other newsy thing that I doubt many people have forgotten yet. The thing where Shelley won the special election, went to DC, moved into her office, took on Tom DeLay’s old staffers, waited for George and Dick to come and witness her swearing in, raised a fit when they didn’t show, had her entire staff walk out on her, and called for a congressional investigation about a standard housekeeping procedure.

Remember that? Well you can bet the DC guys that sent Pete Olson to tame this congressional district, a district that went maverick on them and elected a Democrat, hadn’t forgotten either, which is why they sent Pete in.

Upon first reflection, I am thinking that the low numbers that Shelley received are what I am starting to call the Obama/Limbaugh Effect. Rush ordered his ditto-heads to the polls in Texas and they cast their votes for Hillary Clinton. Other rightwing Republicans, maybe more fatalistic ones, rushed to the polls and voted for Obama so that they could finally get rid of Hillary Clinton once and for all (a Democrat was going to win, they said, they just didn’t want it to be Clinton). The net result is a loss of primary votes for wacky, wacky Shelley Sekula Gibbs, the neocon’s best friend.

Votes she can’t have back in the runoff, either, because they voted in the Democratic primary.

Putting, I fear, Pete Olson in the catbird seat. Now all Pete has to do is get the endorsements of his main rivals: John Manlove and Bob Talton. Dean Hrbacek was once a Sekula Gibbs cheerleader, so who knows what he will do?

With two endorsements and a much, much lower Republican turnout in the runoff, Olson is a real contender, so we ought to be seeing a real horse race here.

This upsets me a little, because I was looking for a good laugh and lots of entertainment from the GOPers who want to mount a campaign against “Liberal Lampson” (oh God I just WISH it were true). If Pete knocks Shelley out of the race, there goes the comedy.

On the bright side, if Pete Olson carries the day in the runoff, the Republicans will lose one of their biggest (and silliest) claims, that Nick Lampson is an outsider, a Beaumont carpet bagger.

Next to Olson, Nick Lampson is paisano.