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?

Should Hillary Clinton Drop Out? Absolutely NOT!

The litany of calls for Hillary Clinton to read the writing on the walls, do the math, and decide that this race is unwinnable needs to just stop. For once in this campaign, Bill Clinton is absolutely right that the continued struggle for the nomination will not weaken the Democratic Party, but strengthen it.

Barack Obama is, himself, in absolute agreement on this. Probably for his own reasons, but maybe in part the same reasons I have.

My reasons? It all goes back to the Texas county conventions. They say that over a hundred thousand people participated in county conventions, caucuses really, this past weekend. This is a phenomenal episode in Texas politics. This event brought out people of all ages, from those just put onto walkers to those just out of their braces, all races, all nationalities, all because they are energized by this race that goes on and on.

And I can’t get enough of it.

Why then, call a halt to it? Why? Why deprive the people, people who will vote in the last 10 primaries, the opportunity to have just a small taste of what we had here in Texas last weekend? People are coming out who have never voted in a primary, attended a caucus or attended a state convention, let alone a national convention.

Relax, they say, the superdelegates are going to decide it. The math says that your average voter will not have anything to do with the process. Try telling that to 100,000 Texans who went to their county conventions and stayed all day, and from some reports, all night. The people aren’t listening to that. The people want to participate. And they want to be heard.

We need that this year. Whatever and wherever it comes from, we need it. We need the attitude of the 41,000 strong DC baseball fans that booed George Bush while he was throwing out the first pitch on opening day at the Washington Nationals’ first game. That enthusiasm must be nurtured and allowed to grow to a blazing inferno.

The last thing we need right now is a bucket of water thrown on the renewed excitement of the promise of a Democratic president in 2008.

If anything, we need a bucket of that 4 dollar gasoline.

Oh, and in case you missed it, here is our president being booed. Watch his face at 0:55.

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.

Obama Campaign Calls It: Obama Takes Texas On Step Two

Taking a look at the Obama campaign website this evening, Christopher Hass has called Texas for Obama. This was way back when 31.26% of the 284 county conventions reporting in results, with Obama projected to net 9 delegates over Hillary Clinton, just as projected from early caucus results that came out in the days after the March 4th primary/precinct conventions.

They are closely watching Burnt Orange Report’s timely posting of results as they are reported in by phone or email. BOR, incidentally, has reported record pageloads this evening as the entire nation tunes in to the same website that Barack Obama’s people are listening to.

That number, by the way has changed somewhat since Obama’s first report of results from Texas. At the time of their report, at 7:28 CDT, they had Obama by 55% to 45%. At this writing, with 42.96% of the conventions reporting (122), it is Obama by 57% to 43%, this despite a huge win by Clinton in the Hispanic dominated western-most counties in and around El Paso.

The fat lady, however, doesn’t sing until the state convention this June. That’s the rule here in wild and wooly Texas. It’s not who you vote for, but who shows up, who goes to their daughter’s soccer game this morning instead, and who goes home too early. And it all gets to be replayed in June.

And then there are all the challenges that Clinton supporters are lodging against Obama delegates . . .

As Ollie used to say to Stan, “Well, that’s another fine mess you’ve gotten me into”. In this case, though, the mess is truly fine. Despite all the pain and toil, despite the reports of conventions that ranged widely from calm to calamity, Texas is showing the rest of the country how to get media attention on an otherwise ho-hum presidential campaign day.

Texas Two Step: Step Two

The county convention I attended today, SD 18 in Fort Bend County, was everything anyone could possibly expect in this singular year of high interest and involvement. Long lines, confusion, tedium, contentiousness, confusion, energy, elation, confusion, bitterness, disagreements, excitement, disappointments, resentment, delight, and confusion.

Did I mention confusion?

Confusion came from three sources that I could isolate. First and foremost, the sheer numbers. Hundreds attended the county convention where only tens bothered to appear before. While I have no accurate head count of how many delegates, alternates and observers were there, my estimate is somewhere around 750. Delegates were checked in, and alternates were sent to the school cafeteria to await a call-up. In the end, 630 delegates were seated. Second, absolutely, was ignorance. Since the vast majority of attendees were brand spanking new to the process, there were too many questions that were apparently answered by those not cognizant of the rules. Third, lack of coordination from the county party. It was reported at the convention that critical information was not provided to the temporary chairman up to until the prior evening.

All of that, and the process worked because of the sheer will of the people to make it work. That and a dedicated staff of Clinton and Obama supporters who strived to make the whole process as painless and fair as possible. After all, no one wins if anyone tries to game the system.

And isn’t this what “grassroots” is all about?

The numbers? Well, the SD 18 portion of Fort Bend County went for Barack Obama in the primary election. With 49 precincts within the area, 7448 votes were cast for Obama (60.8%) and 4799 for Clinton (39.2%). So you would expect the convention numbers to mirror the primary numbers, and they did. And then some.

Total convention votes were 414 votes for Barack Obama (65.8%) to 215 votes for Hillary Clinton (34.2%) and one vote, uncommitted. This slight improvement in the vote for Obama is what was seen in the caucus results reported at the TDP website, until whining from both campaign camps closed down that free service.

So by my math, that's 41 Obama delegates for the state convention, and 22 Clinton delegates.

Was there angst at those numbers? Absolutely, what else could you expect? What is becoming more and more clear, that Barack Obama has a majority of voters in this contest, is still unclear to the few, who, upon hearing the announcement of the vote results, contested the results based on an element of confusion that a few of the Clinton supporters dreamed up.

A Clinton delegate challenged the vote based upon her understanding that alternates were allowed to take the place of absentee delegates from other precincts, this from an announcement she had heard when delegate chairpersons were instructed to fill their absentee slots with alternates. No one else could recall that announcement, and the convention temporary chair disputed the woman’s claim, saying that when he made the announcement to fill the empty spots, he instructed chairs to pick from their own precincts, and, as much as possible, to replace the absent delegate with an alternate having the same presidential preference. He said he repeated that announcement four times.

Unfortunately I video recorded his announcement of those very things only once.

But perhaps once is enough.

At the Candidates Forum for Fort Bend ISD Board of Trustees

As is their habit, the Fort Bend Employees Federation, aka “the teacher’s union”, held a Fort Bend ISD candidates’ forum last night at the Sugar Land Marriott. The public was invited to this under-publicized event, and as a result, the room was filled with Fort Bend ISD groupies, others running for public office, and a bunch of students from a local high school.

And me.

And FortBendNow.

I went out of curiosity and not knowing when I would have a chance to see them all in one place again.

That last, however, the thing about seeing them all in one place, will have to happen sometime in the future because two candidates did not appear, turning this thing, for the most part, into a beauty contest.

Fort Bend Trustee Stan Magee studiously avoided the whole thing, as expected, because Magee has little regard for unions and unionized teachers. So that left the floor to his challenger in this election, Susan Hohnbaum. Now I don’t know the woman’s politics but from where I sat I could see this is someone we can all use. A veteran teacher, Hohnbaum is also cognizant of technology issues – technology as in teaching technology. There are some questions that I have, however, like how she intends to separate her current position as an employee of a construction firm from her position as a school board member who would be deciding about construction contract awards. Would we lose a vote if her employer bids for a district project?

Come on, who am I kidding? Hohnbaum or Stan Magee? There isn’t even a question of who to opt for here.

Time to let Stan truly retire and enjoy those grandchildren.

Another race to fill Cynthia Knox’s seat is between eternal candidate and activist Rodrigo Carreon and a former candidate for BOT last year, Daniel Menendez. This forum also saw no opposition candidate for that position. Only Carreon showed up. Menendez, it was explained, was called out of town on business.

Strike one. What comes first, the people’s business or your own business? Menendez pulled out of the 2007 BOT election when he found that his good friend David Reitz was also running for the same position. No one told 504 voters though (page 6). So now, Daniel wants to serve on the board with his friend David.

Maybe he won’t quit this time.

Daniel is running against Rodrigo Carreon, who DID show up to this forum, and to any forum he is invited to. Sometimes it is difficult to follow just what Rodrigo is saying because he is all over the map, but when pressed for an opinion, Carreon does not allow things like politics stand in his way. Statewide, Carreon says, school district superintendents are all overpaid. He did not favor the recent pay bump given to the present district superintendent.

This brings me to the only trustee position where both candidates appeared. Position 5 is currently held by Laurie Caldwell. She is being challenged by a relative newcomer, Dr. Jonita Reynolds, wife of attorney Ron Reynolds who recently lost his bid to unseat Dora Olivo in a very hard-fought contest for HD 27 state representative.

Ron was in the audience to listen to and in support of his wife.

Caldwell, it may be recalled, was elected in a reform movement in 2005 which brought in a “new majority” that later devolved into the “Gang of Four”. That gang consisting of former board members Lisa Rikert and Ken Bryant, and current members who are running for re-election, Stan Magee and Laurie Caldwell.

Two of that old gang are now gone. Stan? Who knows. He is always such a loner on the board these days, who knows what his fate will be?

But now, Laurie Caldwell, now that’s a study. She was often seen as a swing vote, sometimes voting with the gang, sometimes against it. In a pivotal vote in October 2005, Caldwell voted against the gang and then-district superintendent Betty Baitland was spared the axe that eventually befell her, prompting one political wag to quip “Let's hope that Laurie Caldwell sticks with those who brung her.”

Sad to say, that did not remain the case, and eventually Caldwell placed herself squarely against the continued stewardship of Dr. Betty Baitland, effectively ending that woman’s career in education.

Clearly, Caldwell will want to avoid recollection of those bad old days. She cites her attention to “the data”, her years of volunteer work for the district including 8 PTA presidencies, and now most recently, her work in Alief ISD as a special ed teacher after receiving an emergency certification. And oh, yeah, she owns Caldwell Critter Sitters.

She faces Dr. Jonita Reynolds. Reynolds’ delivery saw no commas, semicolons or periods. Once unleashed on the audience, she spoke of her credits and accomplishments non-stop. Educationally, the woman was made for this job. Her MA and PhD degrees, from the University of Houston, are in the area of Education in Administration and Supervision. And, oh yeah, Reynolds is Chief Executive Officer of a non-profit corporation that employs 400.

400 people.

Hillary Clinton in Bosnia: The REAL Video Evidence

I don’t know where it came from, just from some people who are apparently only barely political. It is these kinds of groups that we need right now to bring the truth to the lies, to bring fact to the fiction, to bring integrity back to the Clinton campaign . . .

… to put a “nine” in Hillary Clinton’s shootin’ hand.



That’s how it all went back then, right?

Clinton: Most Delegates Are Unpledged

Citing a 1982 Democratic Party rule, the Clinton campaign has now embarked on a new crusade to create doubt that Barack Obama has won a majority of pledged delegates.

Most states, the Clinton campaign says, do not compel their pledged delegates to honor their pledges. From CNN:

“‘I think what Mrs. Clinton was trying to make clear was that no delegate is required by party rules to vote for the candidate for which they're pledged,’ said [Clinton advisor, Harold] Ickes.”

“‘I mean obviously circumstances can change, and people's minds can change about the viability of a particular candidate and that's permitted now under our rules ever since the 1980 convention.’”

I think that the Clinton campaign makes a good point, but for other reasons than theirs. I am now in a place, a mindset let’s just say, that tells me that there might just be a little buyer’s remorse out there among the electorate.

And among Clinton pledged delegates.

This news about Clinton’s gross exaggeration of the danger she faced in her trip to Bosnia simply won’t go away, especially as she stubbornly refuses to admit to the “whopperness” of her more recent recollections of that trip, just as she stubbornly refused to admit her mistake in voting for war in Iraq. She now claims that she made those remarks that attempted to revise history, several times, by all accounts, because she was tired. Do I need to ask whether Hillary Clinton tells lies when she is tired? When Hillary Clinton is tired, does she suffer lapses in judgement? Is Hillary Clinton ever tired at, say, 3 AM? How does that work?

This grasping at excuses reveals a character flaw in Hillary Clinton, something that we also have in our currently sitting president: stubborn refusal to admit to a mistake. Just how far would Hillary Clinton go not to admit a mistake? As far as George W. Bush has?

I hope not, but can we as a nation dare to take that chance again?

Others have pointed out still more instances of Hillary Clinton’s gross exaggerations on her impact on government policy and on the importance of her negotiations with foreign powers. I really think that is just overkill.

After all, once you catch someone, anyone, in a lie like the one we caught Hillary Clinton in, the tendency is not to want to believe that person ever again, isn’t it?

How then, is that different for a politician running for President of the United States?

It isn’t, and I will just bet that there are some former Clinton supporters out there, as well as some Clinton “pledged delegates” (in quotes, because as Clinton’s own people say, they are not) who are now taking a second look at this candidate, and are coming away with doubts.

So as they say, “Let the birds fly as they may”. I’ll just bet that the Clinton campaign would no doubt be surprised by the result.

The Road To Victory: Texas (Part Deux)

Part two of the DSCC’s video series on the coming Democratic victory in 2008 is out. In part 1 the DC videographer appeared in Fort Worth and starting asking around if anyone knew who John Cornyn was. It’s here if you missed it.

In part 2 of the series, she joins the Rick Noriega for US Senate campaign as they barnstorm around the state bringing the Democratic message to the voters.

Take a look.



Strangely silent at the first video from all I can see, up pipes reporter W. Gardner Selby (I always mistrust people who don’t like their first names enough to substitute it with an initial – what about “Butch” or “Skip"?) with a commentary. He has a running critique of the video here.

It’s a pretty laughable article, and you can get a pretty good idea of his fan club when you read the comments.

W. was first to jump on a Cornyn’s staffer’s observation on how Rick muffed the words to Deep in the Heart of Texas (or whatever the H E double hockey sticks that song is called). The thing that I can’t get my brain wrapped around is this: whether there is something, some cogent idea behind that remark. Is it that Rick is less of a Texan because of that? And when I think more of it, the lyrics make no sense either way you say them so what’s the big deal, anyway?

I’ll bet John Cornyn from here forward known as "JC", a baby boomer like me, doesn’t know the lyrics to the rock song that shaped our generation.

I’ll just bet.

Remember Louie, Louie?

Say, hey, JC, can you sing with me?

Ah Louie, Louie
Ohhh, no . . . JC’s gotta go
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah

Yes, it really goes like that.

Then our friend, W., goes after Rick because he stuffs a paper napkin into his shirt collar when he eats barbecue.

Now who is the true Texan, W.? How is one ever going to eat barbecue in public, especially when it is dripping with sauce, unless you stuff that napkin down your shirt? Or do reporters like to drip the sauce on their shirts so they have something to snack on later?

Heckfire, it makes it easy to wipe your fingers off if you have the napkin on your shirt – the way you’d do it at home – without a napkin.

More to the point: I’ll bet W., and John Cornyn for that matter, eat their barbecue with knives and forks.

And I’ll bet it goes right over their heads that I’ve just grossly insulted them.