Now That's What I'm Talking About!

Well, mostly. Boi From Troi:

While several initiative petitions have been circulating to ban gay marriage and all forms of domestic partnership, a new measure has been submitted to the California Attorney General for title and summary which would change California law to allow any two persons otherwise not disqualified to marry in California.

I've said before that I think the gay rights movement in particular, and progressives in general, need to make better use of the initiative processes in the states, and this is at least a good start. I'm not sure about the language exactly, but it might work in California. I keep thinking the word "discrimination" should be in there somewhere. Most people make up their minds on ballot measures in the voting booth. The right language is essential. Anyway, I'll be very interested to see what happens with this.

TX-HD-106: England defeats Hubener

Republican Kirk England has defeated Democrat Katy Hubener in a close, low-turnout special election in Grand Prairie, TX for state representative. England won with 2788 votes (52.86%) to Hubener's 2438 (46.23%). Although Hubener won the votes actually cast on election day, early voting ballot put England over the top. It was a tough fight for Hubener in this Republican district, and with few people paying attention. I still have some hope though that Democrats will be able to take this seat in November. I guess we'll see.

The Texas Republican Schoolyard Brawl

There's an all-out war in the Texas Republican Party over education, and Democrats are positioned to exploit it. Somewhat. Obviously, the most noteworthy manifestation of the war is Republican-turned-independent Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn's clear line of attack on Gov. Rick Perry over his failure to get any kind of school finance plan out of the legislature. But there's another important aspect that could lead to an improved opportunity for Texas Democrats to take back the state house of representatives.

Dr. James Leininger, a San Antonio school vouchers advocate, is aggressively funding primary challenges to Republicans who don't support vouchers. The Leininger 5 are:

	Leininger
Challenger	money	Incumbent
Chris Hatley	$50,384	Rep. Charlie Geren, R-Fort Worth
Van Wilson	$130,156	Rep. Delwin Jones, R-Lubbock
Wayne Christian	$160,669	Rep. Roy Blake, R-Nacogdoches
Mark Williams	$166,527	Rep. Tommy Merritt, R-Longview
Nathan Macias	$182,911	Rep. Carter Casteel, R-New Braunfels

On the other side, is the Texas Parent PAC, which is funding primary challengers to Republican supporters of school vouchers, including Reps. Kent Grusendorf, Betty Brown, and David Swinford. The Texas Parent PAC is also supporting some open seat candidates, and the incumbents being challenged by Dr. Leininger's candidates.

Some of these primary races are in districts where Democrats don't have a chance, but others are decidedly not. Here's what happens to the districts' vulnerability rankings in my estimation should the incumbent be knocked out in the primary:

HD-004 Betty Brown -- Solid Republican => Leans Republican
HD-007 Tommy Merritt -- Solid Republican => Likely Republican
HD-009 Roy Blake, Jr. -- no Democratic opposition
HD-073 Carter Casteel -- no Democratic opposition
HD-083 Delwin Jones -- Solid Republican => Solid Republican
HD-087 David Swinford -- no Democratic opposition
HD-094 Kent Grusendorf -- Solid Republican => Likely Republican
HD-099 Charlie Geren -- Solid Republican => Likely Republican

As you can see, there are 4 races (about half) Republicans may be putting into play with this dangerous game of brinkmanship: HD-099, HD-094, HD-007, and especially HD-004. Now I don't know that much about these districts' Democratic candidates. Some may be better than others. But all of them would rather face a primary challenger than an entrenched incumbent I think. And all of them would rather face an opponent that was run through a wringer and dirtied up a bit too. And these are only the Texas Parent PAC and Leininger-funded primary challenges. There are a few others on the Republican side that could make things more favorable for Democrats as well.

Primaries are risky. They can either help you or hurt you depending on how the primary is run. If both sides remain civil, and it raises the party's profile, it helps. That happened in the Democratic presidential primary in 2004. If, on the other hand, the candidates start throwing mud, and the campaign becomes bitterly personal, it hurts. That's what has happened in the Ohio Senate Democratic primary this year with candidates Rep. Sherrod Brown and Major Paul Hackett. The Texas Republican Schoolyard Brawl is looking more and more like the latter.

My latest State House rankings: Feb 15, 2005.

Popcorn, anyone?

UPDATE: I feel obligated to point out that all of the rankings changes that could occur as a result of the Republican education civil war still at best leave the ranking at "Leans Republican". Why should I be excited about that? Well, there's always the chance that those races increase in competetiveness. But the main reason I'm excited is because this feels like it will be a Democratic year to me. And I have a sort of giddiness about that, leading me to feel a bit more optimistic that the "Leans Republican" category may not lean as Republican as it would in normal years. But then again, what do I really know?

New Lows

CBS:

Bush approval: 34% (Disapproval 59%)
Bush approval on Iraq: 30% (Disapproval 65%)
Port deal, in favor: 21% (Not in favor 70%)
Bush favorable: 29% (Unfavorable 53%)
Cheney favorable: 18% (Unfavorable 46%)
Congress approval: 28% (Disapproval 61%)
Jan 1994 Congress approval: 30% (Disapproval 58%)

This is all because of Dubai Ports World. Basically, Bush's natural approval rating right now is somewhere in the low 40's. If he's fallen below that, it's because Fox News and Rush Limbaugh started attacking him. That's why his veto threat on the ports deal was such a bad move. It had no constituency (inside the U. S.), and it pissed off his base.

Interestingly, there are more Americans who support the ports deal than like Vice President Cheney. I guess that's what shooting a guy in the face will do to your poll numbers...

Texas Primaries

Busy day today... No time for an in-depth post. Luckily though, Charles Kuffner has a great one today about what's going on in the primaries. I suggest you guys check it out.

Bris Tuesday

I'm hosting a bris Tuesday for my nephew Noah, who will be 8 days old. This will be the first time I've ever participated in a bris, and I will have the honor of holding Noah during the ceremony. Here's to new experiences in life!

Bush and Ports

Ok, I don't know if Dubai Ports World would really be a security risk, so I can't comment on that. But, it's absolutely clear that at first glance, it looks to most people like it would. There may be a racist motivation for some, and that's certainly not a valid reason. Others are simply thinking that it would be easier for Al Qaeda operatives to infiltrate a Dubai-based company than an American company. Personally, I don't like the idea of foreign state-owned companies from any other nation acquiring assets within the United States, especially in transportation, but that doesn't mean there's anything more wrong with this particular acquistion. And my concerns have little to do with an increased threat of terrorism. Just with espionage, long-term.

Anyway, Bush is playing with fire on this. His approval ratings are in the 39-45 range. Pretty much, there's only one way for them to sink lower -- for the Republican Noise Machine itself (aka Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, the Drudge Report, the Washington Times, and the legion of conservative pundits) to start attacking him. We saw it with the Harriet Miers nomination. While that was going on, Bush dipped into the mid-thirties. He recovered after she withdrew. But the RNM is just as up in arms about this port deal. As well they should be, politically speaking. Rasmussen polled the port deal at 64% oppose, 17% support.

So, Bush's veto threat is absolutely not credible, and borders on "not in touch with reality". I mean, he has never in his entire term of office exercised his veto powers, but would veto over this? If he did, he would be overridden, since Republicans in Congress read polls too, and they're more concerned with their own re-election than Bush's prestige. And that would end up being worse for him politically than not vetoing.

TX-28: Odds and Ends

The Austin-American Statesman has a good summary today of the Democratic primary in TX-28:

In the most contentious congressional race in Texas this spring, former allies are now bitter rivals as they re-fight a 2004 battle that was decided by by 58 votes.

The winner of the March 7 Democratic primary, which first-term U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar and former four-term Rep. Ciro Rodriguez are competing for, will represent District 28, an area that includes 11 counties and stretches from Buda south through San Antonio and into Laredo. No Republican has signed up to run.

Cuellar is from Laredo, and Rodriguez from San Antonio.

...

Cuellar had seven times more cash on hand than Rodriguez at the end of last year, according to federal filings.

Rodriguez, however, got an unexpected boost to help close the gap after a picture of President Bush happily greeting Cuellar by the cheeks at the State of the Union address circulated among left-leaning blogs last month. Rodriguez collected $272,000 in January and February, while Cuellar took in $319,000.

In case you hadn't heard, the Statesman endorsed Ciro Rodriguez. And here's the infamous Bush-Cuellar face-cupping picture that proved a cash cow for Rodriguez again:

Speaking of endorsments, it looks like the Ciro Rodriguez campaign saw my endorsement, and thought I was important enough to link to on their website. Does this mean people are actually interested in my endorsement? That's terrifying...

The San Marcos Daily Record mentioned Thursday that Cuellar failed to show up for a League of Women Voters candidate forum, and was roundly attacked in absentia. That's why if you're running, you show up to these things. Your opponents aren't going to defend you.

Kos at Dailykos had more about Ciro's fundraising on Wednesday, indicating that the $272,000 he reported, that was mentioned in the above Statesman article, is significantly lower than what he actually has. In the week since the reporting period ended, he's raised an additional $172,000. As of Friday, DavidNYC reports, Ciro Rodriguez actually has more cash-on-hand than Henry Cuellar. We have a race, ladies and gentlemen! So now instead of claiming Rodriguez won't have enough cash to compete, Cuellar now claims Rodriguez only has enough cash because of "special interests". By "special interests", he means Democrats.

Let me try and summarize as I see it. Henry Cuellar, a freshman representative, who's supported primarily by conservative and Republican groups, is receiving a Democratic primary challenge from Ciro Rodriguez, the former 4-term representative who he unseated in the last cycle in a contested election (essentially a tie) that was resolved when elected Republicans in the judiciary handed Cuellar a victory. Rodriguez has nearly equal cash, is running to the left of Cuellar in the Democratic primary, and has near-universal national party support. Each italicized item above represents a Cuellar vulnerability. I think there's a good chance Cuellar will be defeated by Rodriguez.

I think it's a good thing for Democrats who are interested in party unity, as well as for liberals in the party. DavidNYC at Swing State Project pointed out on Tuesday Cuellar's terrible environmental record. That adds to votes on trade, endorsement of Bush in 2000, support for the federal marriage amendment, and his pro-life and pro-vouchers positions as reasons I'd like to see Cuellar defeated. Rodriguez is better on each and every one of those issues.

Texas Redistricting What-If's

Burnt Orange Report has a great summary of the possible outcomes of a Supreme Court ruling on the current redistricting map in Texas. If the old district map is restored, the most likely outcome aside from leaving the current district map in place, Phillip Martin sums up the opportunities for Democrats thusly:

The seats lost under the DeLay plan were: District 1 (Sandlin), District 2 (Turner), District 4 (Hall switched parties), District 9 (Lampson), District 17 (Stenholm) and District 24 (Frost). If the map is reversed, Democrats would almost certainly reclaim Districts 9 and 24. It is also possible to reclaim Districts 1 and 2, assuming the former Members return or other very strong candidates are recruited. Obviously, District 4 is lost, and District 17 is strongly Republican and would not likely be reclaimed.

Read the whole article. It's good stuff. Wikipedia has some good background info on the whole redistricting affair in 2003 that led to the current map.

Friday Baby Blogging

Meet my new nephew Noah:

South Dakota Bans Abortion

This is ominous:

SIOUX FALLS, South Dakota (Reuters) - South Dakota became the first U.S. state to pass a law banning abortion in virtually all cases, with the intention of forcing the Supreme Court to reconsider its 1973 decision legalizing the procedure.

The law, which would punish doctors who perform the operation with a five-year prison term and a $5,000 fine, awaits the signature of Republican Gov. Michael Rounds and people on both sides of the issue say he is unlikely to veto it.

...

"We hope (Rounds) recognizes this for what it is: a political tool and not about the health and safety of the women of South Dakota," Looby said.

"If he chooses to sign it, we will be filing a lawsuit in short order to block it," she said after attending the afternoon debate at the state capital in Pierre.

Proponents have said the law was designed for just such a court challenge.

The timing is right, supporters say, given the recent appointments of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito to the high court. The two conservatives could pave the way to a decision overturning Roe v. Wade.

My guess is that Roe v. Wade will still be upheld, as long as Justice John Paul Stevens remains on the Supreme Court. But he's 85, and Bush still has about 3 more years...

UPDATE: Bowers makes a good point:

Obviously, this is an extremely dangerous time for women. I would also like to point out that it is not necessarily an action that jibes with the populace of South Dakota. According to Survey USA, South Dakota splits 47-49 "pro-life-pro-choice." As such, I wonder if this law, approved by a 2-1 margin in the South Dakota Senate, will have any repercussions for South Dakota lawmakers. Quite a few of them are clearly out of step with their constituents on this issue.

I don't know whether or not Democrats will be able to make hay of this in South Dakota, but usually when Roe v Wade gets threatened, there's a backlash. Of course the last time that happened was in the late 1980's...

Where the Gay Rights Movement is Going

E.J. Graff at the American Prospect has an article about the strategies and goals of gay rights groups. It's worth a good read.

A couple of interesting polls were mentioned. In 2003, 88% believed you shouldn't be fired just because you're gay, up from 56% in 1977. In 2005, 80% believed gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military, up from 59% in 1992, when Don't Ask, Don't Tell was implemented. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say the next time Democrats gain real control of Congress, Don't Ask Don't Tell will be repealed, and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) will finally pass. The election of Hillary Clinton as President may slow down a Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal though.. She wouldn't want the beginning of her administration compared in that way to the beginning of her husband's.

Anyway, the strategy revealed by Graff appears to be this:

1. Be choosier with cash support for Democrats.
2. Build up support infrastructure like the Gill Foundation that can do research and strategic planning.
3. Acquire funding for movement-building, training, and organizing efforts.
4. Work with established progressive players like George Soros' Open Society Institute, and interest groups like labor unions, civil rights groups, and women's rights groups. Help them, then they'll help you.
5. Localize goals: all states are not the same.

These are good goals, and I think the gay rights movement as a whole has been very successful at moving toward them. Unfortunately, the bigots on the other side have been successful too, particularly with the "definition-of-marriage" state constitutional amendments. In fact, as Graff mentions, no such measure has ever been defeated when put to a popular vote.

One of the things I haven't heard much mention of, is making use of voter initiatives ourselves. Considering the overwhelming support we have for banning discrimination, why not make use of that? Especially in states that already have a marriage amendment. It would create an opportunity for courts to rule that the anti-discrimination amendment supersedes the definition-of-marriage amendment. Another step might be using a voter initiative to prevent voter initiatives from overturning constitutionally enshrined civil rights and civil liberties. These are just my suggestions. But it seems to me that if we relinquish the ballot measure to conservatives, we may be giving up a powerful tool.

Another thing Graff mentions that I think is interesting, is the goal for "for 10 states to have full-marriage equality; 10 states to have civil unions or the equivalent; 10 states to have nondiscrimination laws and be repealing (or peeling back the effects of) their anti-gay marriage amendments; and the final 20 states to show progress." What would those top 10 states be? Massachusetts, certainly, already has full marriage equality. Next on Graff's list were Washington, New Jersey, California, New York, and Connecticut. Personally, I'm nervous about Washington and California because both states have voter iniatives that conservatives can use to overturn legislation by popular vote. If the New Jersey Supreme Court rules in favor of gay marriage, then it should be pretty safe there -- a recent Zogby poll put support for gay marriage at 56%-39%. That's pretty much a landslide. In New York, Elliot Spitzer has said he would introduce legislation to legalize gay marriage, and I think, after 2006, there will be a good chance it will pass. Connecticut just passed civil unions, so I think that may push gay marriage a little further down the line there. The 4 next most likely, in my mind, would be Rhode Island, Vermont, Maryland, and Illinois. But that's just a guess.

Texas is pretty far down the list for them I think. We may escape the latest craze, adoption ban amendments, because Warren Chisum and Robert Talton are divided about what to do. But what would it take here for the state anti-gay marriage amendment to be repealed? One of two things: another amendment, which would be a 2/3 vote in both houses of the state legislature, and majority approval of a ballot measure; or a federal Supreme Court decision declaring the amendment constitutional. Considering who sits on the Supreme Court right now, both methods look very far off.

One last thought -- my partner and I were talking about this earlier -- why is it that none of these constitutional amendments simply leave it up to the legislatures to decide the definition of marriage? I mean, their supporters keep decrying the activist judges, but denying any homophobic motivation. Why not just take it out of judges' hands without also taking it out of future voters' hands? Of course I think I can answer that: because their arguments are dishonest. They want to publicly shame gays using the government in any way they can. That, and get more Republican voters to the polls.

And ok, yes, positive change is hard. But I'm optimistic that things will look better if Democrats get more power in November, particularly in some of the bluer states.

Precinct Conventions

Well, I'd wager many if not most readers of blogs like mine already were aware of this, but, at least in Texas, the day of the primary, if you voted in the Democratic primary, you can go to your precinct convention after the polls close. But, the first I've heard of these things was today, when I was invited to one after voting in the primary, and I pay attention to politics. So, I'm going to guess there are a lot of people out there who aren't aware of precinct conventions, or that they can go to them.

What's the point of precinct conventions? Well first, it's to elect delegates (and alternates) to the senate district and county conventions. Second, it's to allow Democrats to vote on resolutions drafted by people in the precinct and send them up to the next level of conventions. And third, it's to encourage Democrats to meet and organize at a very grassroots level.

How do you find your precinct convention? Well, it's the day of the primary, after the polls close. And it's in or near the place you voted. Unless you voted early like me. In that case, you need to figure out where your polling place is if you were to have voted on the day of the primary. The Progressive Populist Caucus has articles about how to locate your precinct chair, who you can then ask for more information about these things, and how to participate in or chair your precinct convention.

I'm planning on going to mine March 7 after the polls close, at Sunset Valley City Hall. Supposedly they last about an hour. And for anyone who's interested in becoming active in the Democratic party, I'd suggest doing the same. At the very least, it will be a good learning experience. If you're thinking about doing more than learning though, you might want to brush up on the rules...

Travis County Early Voting Locations

I just voted in the Democratic primary at the Randall's near my house. Today isn't election day; we're in the generous early voting period that Texas offers. One of the benefits of early voting are that you can do vote at any of the early voting locations, and there probably aren't going to be any lines. All you need to vote is "a voter registration card, driver’s license or any official photo ID, birth certificate, United States citizenship papers or passport, a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement or other official document that shows the name and address of the voter". It took me 10 minutes, but most of that time was spent chatting with the election workers. (They were extremely nice!)

The Travis County Clerk has a list of early voting locations:

The following locations are available:

Monday - Saturday, 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM
Sunday, Noon to 6:00 PM

Central

• Randalls 35th Street
  1500 West 35th Street
  
• Fiesta Mart
  3909 North IH35 @ Delwood
  
• University of Texas
  Flawn Academic Center lobby, West Mall
  
• Travis County Airport Boulevard Offices
  5501 Airport Boulevard
  
• Travis County Courthouse
  1000 Guadalupe Street, 1st floor
  

East

• HEB East 7th and Pleasant Valley
  2701 East 7th Street @ Pleasant Valley (temp. bldg. in parking lot)
  
• Albertson's Riverside and Pleasant Valley
  1819 South Pleasant Valley Road @ Riverside (temp. bldg. in parking lot)
  

North

• HEB at Parmer and I35
  500 Canyon Ridge Drive (temp. bldg. in parking lot)
  
• Albertson's North Lamar and Braker
  11331 North Lamar Boulevard @ Braker (temp. bldg. in parking lot)
  
• Randalls Research and Braker
  10900-D Research Boulevard @ Braker
  

Northeast

• Northeast Health Center at the Springdale Shopping Center
  7112 Ed Bluestein Boulevard, Suite 155
  
• County Tax Office Pflugerville
  15822 Foothill Farms Loop, just off Pecan Street, Pflugerville
  

Northwest

• HEB Four Points 620 and 2222
  7301 FM 620 North @ RR 2222 (temp. bldg. in parking lot)
  

South

• Randalls Ben White and Manchaca
  2025 West Ben White Boulevard @ Manchaca
  
• HEB South Congress and Oltorf
  2400 South Congress Avenue @ Oltorf (temp. bldg. in parking lot)
  
• Albertsons Stassney
  5510 South IH35 @ Stassney
  

Southwest

• Randalls South Mopac and William Cannon
  6600 South Mopac Expressway @ William Cannon
  
• Randalls Brodie and Slaughter
  9911 Brodie Lane @ Slaughter
  

West

• Randalls Lakeway
  2303 RR 620 South
  
• Randalls on Bee Caves Road
  3300 Bee Caves Road
  

---

The following locations are available:

Monday - Saturday, 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM
Sunday, Noon to 6:00 PM

Central

• Northcross Mall
  2525 West Anderson Lane, across from Veranda
  
• Highland Mall
  6001 Airport Boulevard, lower level by JCPenney

Early voting runs through Friday, March 3. You can vote in either the Republican primary or the Democratic primary.

Oh also, there's apparently some sort of "gathering" on election day in each precinct for each party. And you can only gain entrance to these exclusive "gatherings" if you vote in that party's primary. I got a nifty little card signed by the election worker to indicate that I did so. I don't remember this from the last primary I voted in, but I think it's a great idea. That way committed Democrats can socialize and network. I just might check this thing out...

Lego Cheney

(via Boing Boing)

Gay Adoption Bans Coming

As someone who is gay and planning to adopt, this bothers me. A lot. USA Today:

Steps to pass laws or secure November ballot initiatives are underway in at least 16 states, adoption, gay rights and conservative groups say. Some — such as Ohio, Georgia and Kentucky — approved constitutional amendments in 2004 banning gay marriage.

"Now that we've defined what marriage is, we need to take that further and say children deserve to be in that relationship," says Greg Quinlan of Ohio's Pro-Family Network, a conservative Christian group.

Currently, Florida bans gays from adopting. Mississippi bans gay couples from adopting, but not gay singles. Utah bans all non-married couples from adoption. And that's it. It may be about to become a lot less friendly.

USA Today doesn't indicate every single state where this is happening, but it hits three, Georgia, Kentucky, and Ohio. In Ohio, Republicans control every facet of the state government. So if they really want to, they will. Same circumstances in Georgia. In Kentucky, Democrats control one chamber of the legislature, so I'm a little more hopeful they'll be able to block this. But sometimes conservative Democrats can't look past their own homophobia. I hope that won't be the case there, because it will hurt those same conservative Democrats worst in the end.

The sick, disgusting reason for all this is that Republicans have noticed that it helps them at the polls when a gay-bashing measure is on the ballot. They don't always pass, but who cares? It helps Republicans so they might as well do it.

I'm very hopeful that next year things will look better for gay rights because, if the Democrats have a "wave" election, state legislatures around the country are going to fall into the hands of people who are hurt at the polls when gay bashing referenda are on the ballot. And maybe, hopefully, at the federal level as well.

Democratic Primary Endorsements

Early voting has already begun in the Texas primaries. I suppose this means I need to make up my mind who to vote for... I'm agonizing over my choices publicly this year, and seeing other blogs I read doing endorsements, I've decided to make some endorsements of my own. This feels a little strange to me because, as my profile says, I'm just this guy, you know? Who cares what my endorsements are? So maybe that's why I ended up writing a lot of "it seems" and "I like" wishy-washy sentences, but anyway, here they are:

As Damon McCullar at BOR points out, most progressive Texas bloggers have endorsed Chris Bell in the Democratic primary for governor. While I like Bob Gammage fine, and I think he would make both a great candidate and a great governor, I think I'm going to be a lemming here. Chris Bell filed an ethics complaint against Tom DeLay when no one else would. And I want to reward him for doing that, so he's going to get my vote.

Although he has no primary opponent, I'm a little excited to go out and vote for John Courage for U.S. represenative in district 21. He impressed me by being active in the No Nonsense in November campaign, and I would like very much for him to oust Rep. Lamar Smith.

In the Texas House race I get to vote on, I intend to vote for Valinda Bolton. This was a tough decision for me. After some reflection, I think I was a little too hard on Jason Earle earlier. I think he would make a good state representative, and I fully intend to support him should he win the primary. And Eric Beverly really impressed me to the point where I would really like to see him in some office someday. I intend to support him too if he wins the primary. But Valinda Bolton seems to me to exactly fit the profile of a candidate who can win, and values the social issues that are most important to me. She talks like she's proud of being a Democrat, and it should be important to all of us Democrats to support candidates who do that. And she was involved in fighting Propostion 2 last November, a big plus for me.

For those who are able, I would strongly encourage you to vote for Ciro Rodriguez for U.S. representative in district 28, and Carlos Uresti for state senate in district 19. They're up against Democrats who behave like Republicans. Making primaries hurt is the single best way Democrats have to keep the party in line.

If you're in Texas House District 7 and vote in the Democratic primary, I suggest you vote for Patrick Franklin. I like his strong stand in favor of gay rights, increasing the minimum wage, and protecting personal privacy. I like that he has engaged the Texas progressive blogs. And I like that he is gay and open about it, and he stands up for gays, and is starting from that point rather than evolving to it.

If you're in Texas House District 48, I suggest you vote for Donna Howard. Her Democratic opponents are supporting her anyway, but aren't able to get their names off the ballot so quickly after her recent special election victory.

For U.S. Senate, choose Barbara Ann Radnofsky. She's the best chance we have to beat Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison.

For Lieutenant Governor, choose Ben Grant. I think his anti-corruption record will help the Democratic message immensely.

For U.S. Representative in district 1, please vote against this anti-gay Democrat. That would mean you should consider voting for Duane Shaw I suppose. I don't know that much about him, but the other guy pissed me off. I can't even bring myself to write his name...

For U. S. Representative, district 17, vote for Rep. Chet Edwards. It's hard for us to hold a district this red, but Chet Edwards is the Democrat to do it.

I'm still checking out races, so I may offer more endorsements later. Other progressive Texas bloggers' endorsements: Capitol Annex, Brains and Eggs, Off the Kuff (more), Greg's Opinion, The Red State, Dos Centavos.

When Slash-and-Burn Republicans Change Pants

Republicans fundamentally don't know how to design effective large-scale government programs. It doesn't really fit in with their philosophy. It's not what they do. What they do know how to do is parcel out tax revenues to their campaign contributors. But when they do that and try and disguise it as a government program designed to benefit the people as a whole, they generally end up looking foolish. And that's why Bill Frist is having to go through contortions spinning the Medicare prescription drug benefit as a positive for the Republican party.

Republicans used to wearing the "slash-and-burn" pants don't wear the "big government" pants well. But they've worn down the slash-and-burn argument by becoming a majority party. It's much harder for them to advocate slashing and burning popular government programs when they actually have the power to follow through. Their core supporters would expect them to do it, while most voters would be shocked and appalled if they actually did.

Yes, while their "slash-and-burn" MC Hammer-style parachute pants were billowy and luxurious, Republicans have been finding their new "big government" pants uncomfortably snug. But when they changed pants a few news cycles ago, it wasn't because they thought they could disguise themselves as big-government types. It was because they lost control of their bowels and sullied the other pair. "Slash-and-burn" is so 1994.

How I Began My Week

I began my week with $20 donations to Ciro Rodriguez and Carlos Uresti. It's time Democrats started behaving like Democarts, both in Texas and the federal government.Both are mounting primary challenges to Democrats who have trouble remembering that, Rep. Henry Cuellar and State Sen. Frank Madla. I hope it's not (and I think it's not) too late for them to use the money for the March 7 primaries. Good luck to oth of you, Ciro and Carlos!

Battlestar Galactica Finesses Abortion

How could it be possible that the marquee Sci-Fi Channel show Battlestar Galactica was able to create an episode which used abortion served as a major plot point, took no discernible position on the issue, and still made for an excellent show? I'm impressed, I truly am.

How did they do it? Well, the good guy, President Laura Roslin was adamantly pro-choice, but was convinced by bad guy (or at least morally ambiguous guy) Vice President Gaius Baltar to ban abortion in the fleet. She agonized over it, but decided it was necessary to save the human race. But during her announcement, her VP betrayed her and denounced her position, invoking the language of freedom. Language that the President personally agreed with. She then turns and pardons (or grants asylum to, or something) a young woman who was trying to sneak onto Battlestar Galactica to have an abortion in defiance of her parents' wishes.

So, the good guy is pro-choice, but feels compelled to govern pro-life. The bad guy plays both sides of the issue. And there were lots of other twists too, including the fact that Commander Adama, another good guy, was also trying to convince Rosyln to ban abortion, as well as a religious leader from the fleet who ended up not coming across well.

The show was full of the agonized decision-making and hard choices that go along with abortion. And it managed to portray both pro-choice and pro-life people in both good and bad lights. Not an easy thing to do when writing compelling drama without spiralling into triteness. And the Battlestar Galactica folks pulled it off, I thought. Bravo!

Disclaimer: I say this as someone who is pro-choice and a fan of Battlestar Galactica. I pretty much agree with Positive Liberty writer Timothy Sandefur that Roslin was wrong to ban abortion in the fleet. But I still think the show was brilliant.

How to Put This Delicately...

Politician and escort don't really go together. Dallas Morning News (via Nate at Common Sense Blog):

The Web page touts the "hot uninhibited" services of a male escort identified as Todd Sharpe, displaying a blurry beefcake photo and listing a Dallas phone number.

But the number belongs to a salesman and former actor named Tom Malin, a Dallas Democrat who is seeking election to the Texas House.

Mr. Malin acknowledged Thursday that he once worked as a prostitute...

Web pages that have been used to advertise the sexual services of "Todd Sharpe" say he previously worked in the New York City and Los Angeles areas. His rates ranged from $200 to $600, according to graphically detailed reviews from men whom the pages described as satisfied customers.

Mr. Malin said he no longer works as a prostitute.

I just don't know what else to say. Except, I suppose, why on earth can't our gay politicians be more upstanding? It's always an affair or a checkered past with them...

It's not really fair to have a higher standard for them, but I do. Living a moral life can be challenging when society thinks you're amoral just because you're gay. But that doesn't excuse you from doing it. It makes it more important.

Overview of Texas State House Primaries

While it looks difficult for Democrats to retake the Texas House of Representatives, the March 7 primary offers Democrats some hope for a shift in the battlefield in their favor. Republicans have been going crazy with primary challenges against their own incumbents, as folks like Dr. Leininger on the one hand, and the Texas Parent PAC on the other, try and pull Republicans like taffy on education. Charles Soechting of the Texas Democratic Party has gone so far as to describe Texas Republicans as experiencing a "rift".

Primaries in general sometimes help and sometimes hurt the incumbent party. It largely depends whether they are cordial and increase positive media coverage of all the candidates, or are brutal and negative, and make everyone involved look slimy. But when a primary challenger unseats a longstanding incumbent, the opposing party is often given an opportunity for a pickup, assuming they have a candidate in place.

Here's a rundown of what's going on.

Categories

1. Safe Challenges: An incumbent being challenged in the primary, but not the general election.
2. Bipartisan Primaries: Both parties have multiple candidates.
3. In-Party Unity, Out-Party Primary: The party out of power has a primary before getting to take on a unified incumbent party.
4. Out-Party Unity, In-Party Primary: The party holding an open seat has a primary. The other party does not.
5. Incumbents Facing Primary, Out-Party Unity: An incumbent is facing a primary challenge and a general election challenge. In my opinion, these are the seats to watch.

Safe Challenges

These Republican incumbents are being challenged in the March 7 primary, and they have no Democratic opposition. These are, in a sense, "safe" primary challenges for Republicans to endure. The one that should really make Democrats smack their forheads is HD-009: Roy Blake, Jr. He's the only Republican on this list from a blue district (using, as usual, the 2002 Sharp/Dewhurst numbers from Quorum Report). Why exactly couldn't Democrats run someone there?

HD-006 Berman 64/36
HD-009 Blake 48/52
HD-026 Howard 65/35
HD-072 Campbell 56/44
HD-073 Casteel 71.5/28.5
HD-087 Swinford 63/37
HD-098 Truitt 72/28
HD-101 Reyna 56.5/43.5
HD-112 Hill 63.5/36.5

These Democratic incumbents being challenged in the primary, with no Republican opposition. They are, in a sense, "safe" primary challenges for Democrats to endure. Republicans sure picked some blue districts to give up on.

HD-042 Raymond 17/83
HD-043 Escobar 36/64
HD-109 Giddings 27/73
HD-110 Jones 15/85
HD-140 Bailey 33.5/66.5
HD-146 Edwards 27/73
HD-147 Coleman 18/82

Bipartisan Primaries

Occasionally, both parties have multi-candidate primaries. In those cases, neither party loses out having a primary in and of itself because both are doing it. Now if one party's primary is nastier than the other, that might have an effect... There is one Democratic-held seat where both parties have a primary.

HD-118 open (Uresti) 43/57 **

And two Republican seats where both parties have a primary.

HD-047 open (Keel) 48/52
HD-054 open (Hupp) 56/44

In-Party Unity, Out-Party Primary

There are 5 Democratic-held seats where there are multiple Republicans competing in primaries for the chance to take on a single running Democrat. You can generally see why so many Republicans would be interested. Except for Hernandez's district, these are all very competetive districts.

HD-011 Hopson 52.5/47.5
HD-017 Cook 50/50
HD-050 Strama 48/52
HD-085 open (Laney) 52.5/47.5
HD-143 Hernandez 30/70

There are only 2 Republican-held seats where Democrats face primaries to face Republicans who have sewed up their nomination:

HD-107 Keffer 56/44
HD-108 Branch 56/44

Out-Party Unity, In-Party Primary

There's one case where there's a Democratic primary for a Democratic-held open seat, but the Republican running has successfully avoided a primary.

HD-038 open (Solis) 36.5/63.5

However, there are 7 districts where there are Republican primaries for Republican-held open seats, but the Democrat running has successfully avoided a primary. I suspect in an environment like this it will end up helping the Democrats to be unified, but that's really just a guess.

HD-016 open (Hope) 73/27
HD-028 open (Hegar) 59/41
HD-071 open (Hunter) 61/39
HD-091 open (Griggs) 63/37
HD-106 open (Allen) 55/45
HD-126 open (Hamric) 60/40
HD-133 open (Nixon) 60/40

Incumbents Facing Primary, Out-Party Unity

Looking only at the races I've touched on up until this point, it's wouldn't be entirely clear which party should benefit more from the primary situation. But these last few races, I think, paint a picture showing that Democrats will be helped more this year.

If these Republican incumbents win their primaries, their seats are probably safe (i.e. "Solid Republican"), except Phillips, who I have currently ranked as "Likely Republican". But if they lose, Democrats would suddenly have an opportunity for a pickup. The ranking listed is the vulnerability ranking for the seat should the incumbent lose in the primary.

HD-002 Flynn 61/39 Likely Republican
HD-004 Brown 58/42 Leans Republican
HD-007 Merritt 62/38 Likely Republican
HD-010 Pitts 64/36 Likely Republican
HD-052 Krusee 54/46 Tossup
HD-062 Phillips 58/42 Leans Republican
HD-078 Haggerty 55/45 Tossup
HD-083 Jones 66/34 Solid Republican
HD-094 Grusendorf 62/38 Likely Republican
HD-097 Mowery 58/42 Leans Republican
HD-099 Geren 61/39 Likely Republican
HD-127 Crabb 70/30 Solid Republican

And there are only 3 Democratic incumbents who have primary competitors who have filed, but a lone Republican opponent for November. The most competetive here would be if Donna Howard lost the primary (say, to Andy Brown).

HD-027 Olivo 39/61 Likely Democratic
HD-048 Howard 46/54*** Tossup
HD-075 Quintanilla 36/64 Likely Democratic

So, I've come around the long way to point out the numbers that I think matters here: 10 to 3. There are 10 Republican incumbents (not counting Jones and Crabb here) who could theoretically lose in the primary, thereby increasing the vulnerability of their district. There are only 3 Democrats who could do the same. It should be interesting to see what happens in the primaries March 7. Maybe no incumbents will be defeated. Or maybe only Democrats. I don't quite know how to handicap those primary races, but I do think I have a good idea what could happen if the incumbents lose.


** Yes, HD-118 open, which I mistakenly forgot to include as a "Leans Democratic" district in my State House Rankings. Dadnabit. I'll get it next time.
*** Or maybe Howard doesn't belong on this list... I wonder if Andy Brown and Kathy Rider will line up behind Donna Howard now for November... Anyone heard anything?

Note: I'm tired. I hope I didn't mess up any of the numbers here, but after the day I've had today, I wouldn't be surprised. Let's just say I'm a little loopy right now. Let me know in comments if you guys see something amiss.

TX-HD-048: How Donna Howard Triumphed Over Adversity And Became Queen of Electionland

Phillip Martin:

1. Clear Contrast to Bentzin
2. Appeal to Independent Women
3. Successful Democratic Support Across All Levels

Jason Embry:

1. Republican Dithering on Education
2. Association with Tom DeLay

I think they're both right. Donna Howard won because Austin Democrats are extremely motivated and turned out in force. She was successful in tapping into that motivation by talking about issues Democrats were angry about, especially education. The national, state, and local political environments are all positive for Democrats right now to varying degrees. And Donna Howard, aside from being a great candidate, was an unabashed Democrat in a political landscape of Republican ineptness and corruption.

I'd like to add, if I may be so bold, that the local success of the No Nonsense in November campaign last November against Propostion 2 probably helped her. As Phillip points out:

Howard had a wonderful grassroots operation. From the help of University Democrats to the support of Glen Maxey’s use of innovative phone-banking and grassroots systems, the grassroots effort pulled a great deal of weight in this campaign. Whenever you get people excited on the ground, then it’s ten times easier to get voters to the polls. I think everyone in Austin is pleased with the grassroots effort, and we’re excited/hopeful that the same effort will be put into all our other races come November.

Now, I may only be speaking for myself, but I think given that Travis County was 60% to 40% against Proposition 2 while every other county was for it, that I'm not. Proposition 2 upset Austin liberal Democrats. And they worked like heck to make sure the Austin area came out overwhelmingly to vote against it. Their fiery determination translated not only to votes in Travis County, but in neighboring Hays and Williamson Counties too, where voters were far less in favor of Prop 2 than Texas as a whole. That election probably served as practice to a lot of Democrats, and connected them to people like Glen Maxey who kept the fire going for Donna Howard. I suppose this could be wishful thinking on my part. But, (wishfully) I think not.

TX-HD-047: Another Candidate Forum Tonight

There's another candidate forum where you can meet the pack of hopefuls running for Terry Keel's seat in November at the Southwest Hills Community Church at 6 pm tonight. Caroline Shearer (an acquaintance of mine from way back... and who I've probably known longer than any blogger) has more at her fabulous blog, Candidly Caroline:

Texas House District 47 candidates will face off in a Candidate Forum hosted by the Oak Hill Association of Neighborhoods and the Hill Country Alliance this Thursday, February 16 from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. at Southwest Hills Community Church, just West of the Y on Highway 71.
Scheduled to participate are Eric Beverly, Valinda Bolton, Alex Castano, Terry Dill, Jason Earle, Royce LeMoine, Rich Phillips, Dick Reynolds and Bill Welch.
The first hour of the Forum is "Meet and Greet;" the last two hours are question-and-answer format, with written questions allowed from the audience. The Forum is open to the public and free.

Alas, I will not be able to attend. It's too bad. I desperately want to give Democratic candidate Jason Earle another chance to impress me, since he really didn't at the Sunset Valley candidate forum on Saturday. But unfortunately I have more pressing matters. My partner and I have plans for a belated Valentine's Day dinner at European Bistro in Pflugerville. We haven't been there since last day-after-Valentine's, and we're really looking forward to it. Excellent, excellent schnitzel. Mmmm... schnitzel...

TX-Gov: Strayhorn Gains Ground in Rasmussen Poll

Rasmussen:

Perry (R) 40%
Strayhorn (I) 31%
Bell (D) 13%
Friedman (I) 9%

Perry (R) 38%
Strayhorn (I) 29%
Gammage (D) 18%
Friedman (I) 8%

Evan at Rick Perry vs The World has some cogent thoughts regarding the poll. Check them out.

State House Rankings Update - Feb 15

In light of Donna Howard's win in HD-048, I thought I should update my state house rankings for November.

Likely Democratic Hold
Homer (HD-003)
McReynolds (HD-012)
HD-038 Open (Solis)
Rose (HD-045)
Howard (HD-048)
Leibowitz (HD-117)
Hernandez (HD-143)

Leans Democratic Hold
Hopson (HD-011)
Cook (HD-017)
Toureilles (HD-035)
Strama (HD-050)
Farbee (HD-069)

Democratic-Held Tossup
HD-085 Open (Laney)
Vo (HD-149)

Republican-Held Tossup
HD-047 Open (Keel)

Leans Republican Hold
HD-054 Open (Hupp)
Anderson (HD-056)
HD-106 Open (Allen)
HD-126 Open (Hamnic)

Likely Republican Hold
Seaman (HD-032)
Orr (HD-058)
Phillips (HD-062)
HD-071 Open (Hunter)
HD-091 Open (Griggs)
Goolsby (HD-102)
HD-133 Open (Nixon)
Wong (HD-134)

Methodology, again, is as follows: For open seats, if the party in power has less than 55% in the Dewhurst-Sharp numbers, the seat is a tossup. Less than 60%, Leans Hold, less than 65% Likely Hold, more than that, Safe Hold (and therefore not displayed).

For incumbent-challenger races, freshmen, incumbents whose last election was close, and incumbents who represent districts of the opposite partisan leaning (using QR's 2002 Dewhurst/Sharp numbers) get one point of vulnerability for each category they belong to. So for example, Hubert Vo (D-HD-149) is a freshman, who won a close election last time, and occupies a district of opposite partisanship, so he ranks as a tossup. Incumbents who are unchallenged are considered safe holds.

Donna Howard won with over 55% of the vote, and the district went for Sharp (D) over Dewhurst (R). So she only gets one category of vulnerability from being a freshman. Likely Democratic Hold.

Based on this picture, I'd say Democrats look fairly certain to pick up HD-47. (My district - woohoo!) The HD-106 race in two weeks should give us some idea how Democrats will do in a "Leans Republican" district. I'm going to guess, though, that Katy Hubener will win, and so will the other Democrats running for seats in this category. Call me a starry-eyed optimist. That would represent a 5 seat pickup in November -- good, but not good enough to take control of the House (we'd need 11 I think). Going beyond those 5 seats may be difficult. And defending Vo and Laney's open seat may be difficult as well. But we'll see.

Previous Rankings: Dec 8, 2005; Jan 18, 2006
State Senate Rankings: Dec 5, 2006; Jan 17, 2006

Ways Cheney Can Kill You

Via A Socialite's Life, Pink Dome:



Pink Dome always finds the best pictures...

Gay Cowboys Are Now a Hot Topic

In the era of Brokeback Mountain, we now get a country music song from wonderful Austin-area celebrity Willie Nelson called "Cowboys Are Frequently, Secretly (Fond of Each Other)". Go Willie! I think I actually heard the song a few months ago on Eklektikos, probably the best local public radio show about music in the country. It's a good song. And I would expect nothing less from Willie Nelson.

So we have a movie, and a song. Now we need a TV Series (cough cough Aaron Sorkin), and a musical (cough cough Steven Sondheim). Then at last my dream of electing a gay cowboy President can come true (cough cough George Allen*).

*Note: George Allen may or may not be gay, but the title "gay cowboy President" is really more of an honorary thing.

TX-HD-048: Democratic Pickup in Texas State House

Congratulations to State Rep. Donna Howard! Howard has just beaten Republican Ben Bentzin to fill an open seat in the Texas House of Representatives left vacant by Republican legislator-turned-lobbyist Todd Baxter.

Donna Howard (D) 57.62% - 12,618 votes
Ben Bentzin (R) 42.38% - 9,281 votes

I'm really and truly happy for her. And I'm happy for the Democratic Party. If we hadn't won here, I would have had little hope for November. District 48 was one of the Republicans' most competetive seats in the Texas House (along with district 47). But since we did win, and it was pretty much a blowout, I'm very encouraged. The split is now 64 Democrats, 85 Republicans and 1 vacancy: TX-HD-106. 76 seats are needed for outright control. I confess I really don't know what happens in the event of a tie.

Next up: support Katy Hubener in HD-106!

1994 Pundit Predictions

Election eve predictions in 1994 overwhelmingly predicted Democrats would keep the House, but lose the Senate. It turns out not only did Republicans take the House, but they took it by a fairly wide margin. DavidNYC:

...Prior to the 1994 elections, the Democrats held a comfortable 56-44 margin in the Senate and a huge 258-176 margin in the House. (Bernie Sanders had been kickin' it as the lone independent since 1991.) Those numbers are almost hard to believe today. After the election, the Dems were reeling. The GOP held a 52-48 advantage in the Senate (which would soon grow to 54-46 as two Democrats defected) and a 230-204 lead in the House (Sanders managed to barely hang on).

..

Most pundits predicted that the GOP would take the Senate - fully fifteen were within ±2 of the right answer (which was GOP +4). But oh man, no one even came close to getting the House right. Only four people even said the GOP would emerge victorious, and none of them predicted the eventual 25-seat margin. As far as the House results were concerned, these predictions were almost entirely worthless.

I'll be keeping an eye on pundit predictions for 2006. But I'll be keeping the other eye on their 1994 predictions. Check out his whole article. He's got the 1994 election eve predictions of everyone who was around back then in a handy little chart.

TX-HD-048: Vote Today

Texas House District 48 get out and vote! My recommendation: vote for Donna Howard.

TX-HD-047: Candidate Forum Thoughts

Well, I finally have a moment to sit down and put my thoughts from Saturday into words. I may ramble a bit so please bear with me.

The Sunset Valley candidate forum for Texas House District 47 was an interesting experience for me. Each candidate got to give a 10 minute speech and answer questions for about 10 minutes. There were 5 Republicans and 3 Democrats. The mayor of Sunset Valley and 2 council members were there, as well as (I think) the city attorney. There were around 10 other citizens there including myself. That struck me as too few. I mean, this is an opportunity to exert a ton of influence on the race for an office that is because of its small district size quite responsive to citizen engagement.

I am not a Republican, and I cannot see myself voting for any of the five Republicans running. That said, all the candidates, both Republican and Democrat, were very personable people, who were clearly interested in public service, and that made me very happy. And at this point I'd just like to say that I'm just some guy, you know? Others who went to see the same candidates might have come away with a very different impression. This is just my impression.

I'll start with the Democrats. Jason Earle is likely the front runner by virtue of his name alone. But to me, he seemed a little like a sharply dressed 13-year-old at his bar mitzvah, reading his Torah portion, occasionally stuttering in such a way as to reveal that he, like everyone else, has actually memorized his portion so as not to have to try and decipher the vowel-less scripture on the fly. He managed to treat the forum like a stump speech, saying little beyond grand platitudes. It may not matter. He is the son of District Attorney Ronnie Earle, who is prosecuting Tom DeLay. That may take him all the way through the general election for all I know.

Valinda Bolton impressed me. She spoke passionately about being a Democrat, using the word "Democrat" over and over. Her background of advocacy for the victims of domestic abuse also struck me as a positive quality for a state representative. In fact, I think she is exactly the kind of candidate who will do well in Travis County in November 2006 if the election is nationalized to the extent I think it will be. Travis County Democrats are angry and active right now. They want someone who will fight for them and proudly say "I'm a Democrat." I also like that she worked on No Nonsense in November, and that she, like all the other Democrats in the race, is pro-choice. In short, she shares my values, and my focus on social issues. I believe it is likely that I will be supporting Valinda Bolton in the Democratic primary.

If there were a candidate that caused me to think twice about that, it would be Eric Beverly. He was so steeped in policy, that I became shocked and confused. He has worked as a bill editor in the legislature and as a policy research specialist. I came away with the impression that he clearly knew what he would be doing in the legislature like no other candidate.

My favorite moment of the entire morning came when he was asked a question about a bill that died in the last session that would have made impervious cover limitations of under 40% into "takings" that would require compensation of the property owner. Sunset Valley was opposed to that bill. Mr. Beverly was asked what he would do for Sunset Valley if faced with a bill like that, and he responded that he knew exactly which bill that was (referencing it by name), and that it's sponsor in the Texas House was Robbie Cook. Apparently Cook's agriculture exemption is important to him because Eric Beverly suggested he would introduce a bill to end that exemption. He said something along the lines of "If you mess with my district, I'll mess with yours." Disclaimer: I have no idea if what I just said about agriculture exemptions makes any sense. But it sounded like the kind of hardball I'd want my Democratic state representative to play for me. If anyone besides Valinda Bolton gets my vote, it will be Eric Beverly. I just wish he would have smiled once though.

Among the Republicans, here's my take in brief: Alex Castano seems like he came out of the Republican candidate factory. That would have been perfect if this were 2004. Terry Dill seems like his raison d'etre is to get revenge on no-growth activists (i.e. environmentalists). Bill Welch seemed like a really nice guy -- like he was my orthodontist or something, and he really knew how to engage the audience like no other candidate. Dick Reynolds shocked me in a few ways: 1. He's got grey hair. 2. He's against school vouchers. 3. He decried partisanship despite being a Republican. I think there is little chance he will win the Republican nomination. If I were a different sort of Democrat I would lie and say Rich Phillips was pathetic. In fact he was not. He is the candidate Democrats should prepare for. He comes across and sincere and eloquent and not at all like a marketing consultant (which he is). Plus, he's the best looking candidate, which is probably why I almost wanted to vote for him despite disagreeing with him on every single issue. In some ways I am a shallow, shallow man.

Anyway, on important issues, partisanship or common sense will tell you the answer to most questions about where they stand. All Republicans were pro-life. All Democrats were pro-choice. Everybody was against turning existing roads into toll roads. Everybody seemed to like roads on which some lanes were tolled and others free. Democrats want to fund the schools by enforcing the franchise tax. Republicans want to fund the schools by cutting the rest of the budget, but under no circumstances raising taxes. Nobody liked the idea of condemning and seizing private property for private development.

Well, it was fun going to the candidate forum, and I think I should give a shout out to the candidates who came to give speeches to all 13 or so of us, and to Sunset Valley for hosting the forum. For those of you who have never been to one of these things, you should go. It's a great opportunity to learn about candidates and issues, and a great way to exert influence on the political process. If nothing else, it will make you feel generous and powerful.

See this post for links to the candidates' sites.

UPDATE: Dick Reynolds does indeed have a website, so I've removed references here to his not having one.

Ack

No time today for a detailed post about the candidate forum unfortunately. Real life is too busy. I will see if I have time tonight though.

In the meantime, check out Chris Bowers' Comprehensive House forecast. It's very well thought out. I'm not sure I agree with everything in it, but it will tell you where Democrats are hoping to pick up seats. He wrote four entries: I, II, III, IV.

TX-HD-047: Just Got Back From Candidate Forum

I just got back from Sunset Valley's candidate forum for Texas House District 47. Since I need to get to College Station this afternoon, I'll try and post a more complete summary tomorrow. The candidates there were:

Alex Castano (R): real estate developer.
Dick Reynolds (R): former Dallas representative.
Bill Welch (R): real estate developer.
Valinda Bolton (D): advocate against domestic abuse
Jason Earle (D): health care professional and social worker
Terry Dill (R): attorney
Eric Beverly (D): legislative aide
Rich Phillips (R): marketing consultant

I'm leaning toward supporting Valinda Bolton at the moment, but I'll go into that more later. In the meantime, check out their webistes (except Dick Reynolds, who as far as I can tell doesn't have a website).

UPDATE: Dick Reynolds website found and included.

Cartoon Riots

Ditto James:

First off, to the editors of the Jyllands-Posten:

Shame on you, sirs. The right to free speech is a flimsy shield to hold up when you publish materials that are clearly meant to incite controversy. Even a couple of the artists comment on this in the cartoons you published. Now I believe in the value of a free press, such as it is in the world today, and I even more ferventlyy believe in the right to free speech. Free speech is one of the sacraments of democracy and while I believe you have the right to publish whatever you wish, I would hope that you would use this privilege to add to the public discourse rather than behave like a bunch of school boys. This is the sort of material I would expect to find in a rag published by those neo-Nazi knuckleheads in the KKK (or maybe as doodles on Pat Robertson’s Daytimer) and I would hope your journalistic integrity would not prove to be on par with those mouthpieces of hatred.

Second, to the rioters:

Grow the f*@% up. Seriously. Yes, according to your faith it is blasphemy to portray Mohammed*, much like it is blasphemy for a Christian to say, “God Damn.” Fair enough. It seems that the correct reaction to this would be to publicly enjoin the blasphemer and then pray to Allah for the blasphemer. Pray that they would see the error of their ways and recant their blasphemy. Beyond that shouldn’t blasphemy be a thing between the blasphemer and the blasphemee?

I really do not mean to belittle your anger at the cartoons. I went ahead and checked them out and while I have seen much worse directed at Jews and Jesus, I get where you are coming from on this, but I really do not understand the rioting. I really don’t. I would like to point out that your behavior at this point is only serving to reinforce the negative stereotypes of Islam and Muslims in the eyes of the world.

So, there is a fundamental clash of values going on here. The Islamic fundamentalists do have a double standard. They don't care about tolerating all religions equally, they want their fundamentalist version of Islam to be given preferential treatment. I mean, of course they do. They're fundamentalists. So their Western defenders should just keep that in mind here. To us, this is about freedom of speech and discretion with offensive speech. To them, this is about blasphemy punishable by death according to religious law. We're not all on the same page, and it's creating a rift between our worlds.

National Analyst Roundup

I just want to take a moment to introduce a few of my favorite political analysts at the national level. I don't always agree with them, but I think they're mostly fair-minded and impartial in their analysis. By which I mean that they're non-partisan and non-ideological, though sometimes opinionated. Here's what they wrote about this week:

Norm Ornstein and Charlie Cook both wrote about Boehner's election as House Majority Leader:

Ornstein: Resurrect the ethics process in the House and restore fairness to the legislative process.
Cook: Boehner won because Republicans wanted change and experience.
also: The abuses by the Democratic House majorities of the early 1990s now pale in comparison.

Earlier, Cook wrote about his 2006 House prediction. Nathan Gonzales wrote about the 2006 Senate contest:

Cook: Current model predicts a Democratic gain of 10 seats in the House.
Gonzales: Democrats could gain 4-5 seats in the Senate, but 6 (and control) is a stretch.

Other analysts I usually find interesting are Stuart Rothenberg and Craig Crawford, though this week their analyses were on somewhat less interesting topics than usual:

Rothenberg: Nelson (D-NE) and Chafee (R-RI) should both switch parties.
Crawford: Bush is a divider, who will always feel painfully alone, surrounded by critics.

And then finally, for analysis of the international geopolitical realm of politics, I have yet to find the equal of George Friedman of Stratfor. This week he wrote about the impact of the Danish cartoons on the geopolitical realities of our planet. Unfortunately for you all, his column on the web costs money to access and comes to me by email, so you'll just have to take a quote and be happy:

The cartoons have changed the dynamics both within Europe and the Islamic world, and between them. That is not to say the furor will not die down in due course, but it will take a long time for the bad feelings to dissipate. This has created a serious barrier between moderate Muslims and Europeans who were opposed to the United States. They were the ones most likely to be willing to collaborate, and the current uproar makes that collaboration much more difficult.

It's hard to believe that a few cartoons could be that significant, but these are.

TX-SD-19: Sen. Madla Wants to Lock Me in a Trunk

Karl-Thomas has the scoop (and the video!):

"When I get to the state Capitol, I lock the Democratic Party in my trunk."
- Sen. Frank Madla (D?- TX SD-19)

Well, his voting record sure seems to reflect that. Apparently he refuses to stand with Democrats on issues such as school vouchers, Proposition 2, and Republican-sponsored cuts in Medicaid and CHIP.

Well, I've heard enough. If you live in TX-SD-19, you have a good alternative -- vote for Carlos Uresti in the Democratic primary. If not, you can still give money to his campaign and help keep elected Texas Democrats disciplined. I'm considering that myself.

TX-HD-047: Candidate Forum Saturday

It looks like the City of Sunset Valley is sponsoring a candidate forum for my state house district at City Hall Saturday morning. Rep. Terry Keel (R) is running for higher office, so there are plenty of candidates -- it looks like 5 Republicans and 3 Democrats will be there. Here's the itinerary:

> 9:00-9:20 -- Alex Castano (R)
> 9:20-9:40 -- Dick Reynolds  (R)
> 9:40-10:00 -- Terry Dill (R)
> 10:00-10:20 -- Valinda Bolton (D)
> 10:20-10:40 -- Jason Earle (D)
> 10:40-11:00 -- Rich Phillips (R)
> 11:00-11:20 -- Eric Beverly (D)
> 11:20-11:40 -- Bill Welch (R)

According to Deputy City Administrator Jamey Foley, the format for each candidate will be a 10-minute speech, followed by a 10-minute question and answer session for the city council and residents.

I think I'll probably go. Anyone care to suggest questions I should ask?

2006 Tidbits

VA-Sen: Given that former Governor Mark Warner is not running, Democrats got their second choice in Virginia with former Secretary of the Navy James Webb. Sen. Allen will probably still be re-elected, but since he's a strong contender for the 2008 Republican presidential nomoination, it's a good move for Democrats to give him a tough race this year.

NV-Sen: Nathan Gonzales doesn't think Oscar Goodman would be all that strong. I disagree partly. I do think it would distract a little from Democrats' message, but Goodman is popular in his base of Las Vegas, and would instantly have a ton of media coverage. He would be about as serious as James Webb would be in Virginia. Probably, Sen. Ensign would be re-elected. But Jack Carter is probably not strong enough to even put up a serious challenge.

OR-Gov: Kulongoski has a primary challenger. Amazingly, Democrats' most endangered incumbent governors are in blue states, and Kulongoski is one of them.

NJ-Sen: Republican poll has Kean 33% Menendez 28%. While the race is probably very tight, that's a huge number of undecideds. This poll really tells us very little.

CT-Sen: Lieberman is facing a serious primary challenge in Ned Lamont.

OH-16: Rep. Ralph Regula (R) re-elect is at a paltry 39%. Not good for him.

NM-01: Rep. Heather Wilson (R) is nearly tied with her challenger: Wilson (R) 44% Madrid (D) 43%.

That's all for now I think... gotta get back to work.

Tooting My Own Horn

Wow. I have to say it feels nice when someone notices some hard work I did. But I really wasn't expecting anything this nice. Remember that TX-28 district profile I did not too long ago? Well, I cross-posted it on Burnt Orange Report to play around with their new diaries, and they seemed to like it because it got recommended and then promoted. (Thanks, Karl-Thomas!) And then today, I saw this over at Daily Kos:

So what does this district look like? Burnt Orange Report has a nice profile.

Gore carried the district in 2000 51%-49%, but in 2004, Bush carried the district 53%-47%. In 2002, Democrat John Sharp carried TX-28 with 62% of the vote in the race for Lieutenant Governor, to Republican David Dewhurst's 38%. The 2003 redistricting made TX-28 less Democratic. The pre-2003 district went for Gore in 2000 by 59%-41%.

The district overall is 27.9% White, 64.5% Hispanic, 6.0% Black, 0.5% Asian, with the remaining 1.1% including Native Americans, other races, and those of two or more races. The total population was 651,620 people, as of the 2000 census. The district is 75.9% urban and 24.1% rural. The median income is $31,355, compared to a U.S. median income of $44,473 and a Texas median income of $41,275. 22.6% of the people in the district live below the poverty line. Jobs are 50.0% white collar, 30.7% blue collar, and 19.3% gray collar. 11.9% are military veterans. 52.9% speak a language other than English in the home. 9.5% do not speak English well.

They didn't like Kerry in this district, but Gore's numbers (despite having a native son on the ballot) and especially John Sharp's show that this is a solidly Democratic district. Lots more district info and data in that BOR post.

Does that middle part look familiar? It did to me. Because I wrote it! Woohoo!!!! I saw somewhere that Daily Kos gets about 700,000 readers per day. That makes this easily the most widely distributed writing I've ever done. And it's especially gratifying because I wrote it Friday night only to completely lose the entire post and re-write it from scratch.

Enough tooting my own horn. But damn, what a rush.

2006 Governor Polls

Rasmussen:

ME-Gov: Emery (R) 42% Baldacci (D) 39%
ME-Gov: Woodcock (R) 36% Baldacci (D) 30%
ME-Gov: Baldacci (D) 37% Mills (R) 31%

Mason-Dixon:

WY-Gov: Freudenthal (D) 55% Hunkins (R) 17%

Oklahoma Poll:

OK-Gov: Henry (D) 58% Istook (R) 31%

It's a little surreal that Democratic Governors Henry and Freudenthal in deep red states are doing so well while Gov. Baldacci of medium blue Maine looks so vulnerable.

Wherein Jonathan Rauch Greatly Amuses Me

Jonathan Rauch discloses all his Abramoff connections, elaborating until he runs out of column space. Well done, I say. An example of his work (emphasis mine):

Additional Supplementary Declaration. With the possible exception of Kirk Victor, one of this magazine's Capitol Hill reporters, who is thought to be capable of anything, to the best of my knowledge none of my colleagues on the staff of National Journal has received money or other considerations from the scoundrel Jack Abramoff in return for writing anything favorable about him, not that they would have been worth bribing, as I am. The staff of National Journal is made up of diligent, honest journalists who share my disgust and dismay at the disrepute that the scoundrel Abramoff has brought upon all of us in Washington with his deplorable shenanigans, with which we had nothing to do.

And one more:

The magazine further wishes to announce that its legal department has advised it to terminate said author, who is to be evicted from the premises as a result of making unauthorized disclaimers, including this one. Effective immediately, this column will be taken over by Kirk Victor, who wishes to announce that he has received no money from Jack Abramoff, and that, should he ever pass Jack Abramoff on the street, he intends to kick him.

I haven't had that pleasant of a giggle fit in a while.