Ted Cruz 2016 Speculation Has Already Arrived

by: Ben Sherman

Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 11:23 AM CST

Enter the 2016 speculation, stoked by Cruz himself last week with some public strategic analysis. At a "gala" for the corporate front group the American Principles Project, Cruz said this:

You want to know why Barack Obama won 71 percent of the Hispanic vote? Tone on immigration contributed, but I think far more important was '47 percent...Republicans nationally, the story we conveyed is that the 47 percent are stuck in a static world. We don't have to worry about them...I cannot think of an idea more antithetical to the American principles.

Throughout the speech, Cruz "insisted Republicans didn't lose because of their actual policies. It was just how they expressed them."

Wrong again, Cruz. Republicans don't realize that their tone is only a symptom of their real problem: they are opposed to almost everything the vast majority Hispanics are rightly in favor of. Cruz's idea that Hispanics will vote for Republicans who speak more softly is actually very insulting to Hispanics, who he presumes not to care about the policies that affect their lives.

Cruz continued: "We need to embrace what I call 'Opportunity Conservatism.' We need to conceptualize, we need to articulate conservative domestic policy with a laser focus on opportunity, on easing the means of ascent up the economic ladder." So, essentially, stop making it so damn obvious that Republicans only care about the rich getting richer.

Though Cruz's unique qualities were always going to stoke 2016 speculation, he really is sticking his head out there and offering up his own vision for Republican strategy, wrongheaded though it may be.

"We've seen plenty of new senators come in with plenty of hype and attention (Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Marco Rubio), but those worked hard to keep expectations down. This is something else entirely," NBC's First Read blog read last week.

Cruz taking the mantle of a GOP desperate for relevance, youth and non-white support in 2016 is not a crazy idea. Texas may be doomed to have terrible Republicans tarnish its reputation every four years.

US Senate Ready to Wipe Out Email Privacy in America

by: tcrp

Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 09:21 AM CST

The U.S. Senate will soon vote on a law that would gravely undermine Americans' privacy and give expanded, unbridled surveillance over people's e-mails to more than 22 government agencies.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, the influential Democratic chair of the Judiciary Committee, has capitulated to law enforcement agencies, including the U.S. Justice Department, and is sponsoring a bill, authorizing widespread warrantless access to Americans' e-mails, as well as Google Docs files, Twitter direct messages, and so on, without a search warrant. It also would give the FBI and Homeland Security more authority, in some circumstances, to gain full access to Internet accounts without notifying either the owner or a judge.

Leahy's bill would only require the federal agencies to issue a subpoena, not obtain a search warrant signed by a judge based on probable cause. It also would permit state and local law enforcement to warrantlessly access Americans' correspondence stored on systems not offered "to the public," including university networks.

Even in situations which still would require a search warrant, the proposed law would excuse law enforcement officers from obtaining a warrant (and being challenged later in court) if they claim an "emergency" situation.

Not only that, but a provider would have to notify law enforcement in advance of any plans to tell its customers they've been the target of a warrant, order, or subpoena. The agency then could order the provider to delay notification of customers, whose accounts have been accessed, from three days to "ten business days" or even postpone notification up to 360 days.

Agencies that would receive civil subpoena authority for electronic communications include the Federal Reserve, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Maritime Commission, the Postal Regulatory Commission, the NLRB, OSHA, SEC, and the Mine Enforcement Safety and Health Review Commission. There is no good legal reason why agencies like these need blanket access to people's personal information with a mere subpoena, rather than a warrant.

One might expect better of Leahy, given his liberal credentials; but he has been quite disappointing. In fact, he had a hand in making the Patriot Act bill less protective of civil liberties. Nor has the Administration been helpful in this regard, quite to the contrary. Expectations of "law and order" types might not be as high in terms of protecting civil liberties, but they should not be as unsatisfactory as they are with proponents of constitutional freedoms.

The revelations about how the FBI perused former CIA director David Petraeus' e-mail without a warrant should alarm us all, who have less power and prestige than he did.

If the Fourth Amendment is to have any meaning, it is that police must obtain a search warrant, backed by probable cause, before reading Americans' e-mails or other communications. If we are to preserve our constitutional protection from warrantless searches, unreviewed by the courts, we need to let our U.S. Senators from Texas hear from us immediately and resoundingly.

We cannot allow the government to undermine our rights, bit by bit, even in the name of national security, which too often is the mantra it so casually uses. As Ben Franklin said, those who give up freedom in the name of security deserve neither.

This abridgement of our fundamental rights affects us all -- conservative, liberals, and libertarians alike. Our allegiance to the Constitution must be non-partisan. Write or call your Senators -- now.

Bill O'Reilly Tells Tall Tales About Texas

by: Joe Deshotel

Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 09:00 AM CST

Bill O’Reilly used his post-Thanksgiving Talking Points Memo to discuss what he called a “Tale of Two Americas” between Liberal California and Conservative Texas. His weekend trip to the Lone Star State only included Austin and Houston, but he assured his audience that he “got a good look around”. It’s our low-tax low-service, “overriding tradition” of “self-reliance” that led him to believe he would rather live in Texas. I’ve prepared a few points of correction for him to consider before he packs his bags and leaves New York City.

“I was down in Austin and Houston, Texas doing shows with Miller. It's been a while since I had visited the Lone Star State and I took a good look around.” Bill, visiting Austin and Houston don’t constitute getting a good look around Texas. And, since you used the Presidential election totals from each state to illustrate our differing political ideologies, you should know the cities you visited both supported Obama.

“In Texas, the government does not believe that redistributing income is its responsibility.” Bill, you maybe right about programs for the poor or hungry, but we do that upward redistribution thing pretty well. Let me introduce you to the Governor’s Emerging Technology Fund and Texas’ proposed School Voucher Program.

“There are more prisoners in California than any other state.” Actually Bill you’re wrong. Texas has both the largest number of prisoners and an incarceration rate thats about 50% higher than California.

“Meantime in Texas if you hit it big you get to keep as much of what you earn. Yes, there are local taxes but the state does not impose an income tax.” Well, I guess you actually nailed this one Bill but its too bad so few of us get to “hit it big”. Texas is home to largest share of Fortune 500 companies but we also have the largest share of minimum wage earners. The poorest 20% in Texas actually pay 12.2% of their income in taxes compared to 3% for the top 1%.

“In Texas, the government does not believe...that it should micromanage the lives of its citizens.” You must not be aware we have laws that limit access to contraceptives, make Transvaginal Ultrasounds mandatory before abortions, impose restrictive voter ID requirements or that Texas leaders want to drug test TANF applicants.

I realize your income and gender insulate you from most of these pitfalls, but unless you specifically meant Texas was a better place to be rich and avoid paying taxes, you should consider the children. Hundreds of school districts have sued our state over funding, children in Texas have the highest rate of food insecurity and lowest rate of insurance coverage. Also did you know Texas Republican Party officially endorses abstinence only education, yet Texas has the highest teen pregnancy rate?

You were right about one thing, Texas is a special place. Moderate, Independent and Progressive Texans a make the distinction between our great state with its aboundant natural and human resources, and the way inwhich our government is run. God did bless Texas, but when we talk about social statistics, and the general welfare of our citizens - we’re always reminded to give thanks for Mississippi.

Here is the link to original video and full transcript.

When Young People Vote, Democrats Win

by: Emily Cadik

Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 09:15 PM CST

The Pew Research Center has a fascinating report on the impact of the youth vote in the 2012 election, which shows that in 2012, Obama won 60 percent of the vote from the under-30 bloc - slightly down from his 66 percent in 2008. But this time around, young voters made up 19 percent of the electorate, up from 18 percent in 2008.  And in some key battleground states (like Florida, Ohio, Virginia and Pennsylvania), where Obama lost more significant ground among the older crowd, support from young voters pushed him into the margin of victory.

The 2008 and 2012 elections were the first in four decades where the youth have really split off from their older counterparts. Young voters went for Obama at a rate 12 percentage points higher than the over-30 crowd in this election, and 16 percentage points higher in 2008. Before that, as evidenced in the chart below, there was hardly a spread between the two groups.

While there are certainly a number of potential reasons for the sudden and sharp divergence between young and old, it may well have to do with race, brought to a head by having the first presidential candidate in the racial minority.  

Within the under-30 crowd, the demographics with whom Obama lost ground in this election were generally the same as in the electorate at large - whites, men, independents.  But racial and ethnic minorities and women helped buoy him.  And while women may not have much room to grow as a share of the electorate, racial and ethnic minorities certainly do, and are on track to become a majority by 2050.  Already, only 58 percent of the under-30s are white and non-Hispanic, compared to 76 percent of voters over 30.  

A previous Pew study on the generation gap found that, "Older generations - Boomers and especially Silents [aged 65 and older] - do not fully embrace diversity. Fewer in these groups see the increasing populations of Latinos and Asians, as well as more racial intermarriage, as changes for the better." But as the more diverse and tolerant younger crowd becomes a larger share of the electorate, there will be less and less room for backwards thinking.

And indeed, part of their post-election soul searching has centered around highlighting diversity within the party and softening stances on issues like immigration. Now that the 2012 election proved that 2008 wasn't a fluke, the Republican Party finally has to pay attention.  

And if you think the current batch of 18 - 30 year olds are taking us in the right direction, just wait until the current Big Bird fans hit the polls.  

Can Democrats Win Back The Angry White Man?

by: Joe Deshotel

Tue Nov 27, 2012 at 09:00 AM CST

One of the greatest ironies of the 2012 election is that some who claimed to be the Constitution's greatest defenders were so unhappy with our Republic's choice for President they are now calling for dissolving the Union altogether. Instead of hearing the clear message from voters about their policy positions, Republicans are blaming the electorate as "takers", calling for secession and lamenting the end of America as they knew and loved it. Fox News and friends completely botched the election results but will likely be forgiven by those who just like having their stereotypes of Democratic constituencies validated. The Anger is palpable. Rev. Franklin Graham said by reelecting Obama, America is going further down the "path of destruction", Fox News blamed single women for being single issue voters, Ann Coulter blamed Hispanics for "Ethnic loyalty" and O'Reilly simply announced the end of the "white establishment".  

Before going any further let's get this straight - America was first a land of many indigenous nations that was colonized by Europeans who spread from sea to sea with the help of massive immigration. Today's immigrants are no less entitled to the opportunities to make a living off this great land than prior generations, a point well made by The Daily Show's Jon Stewart. Still there is a bitter romanticism about days the "white establishment" ruled the land, particularly the 1950s. An article titled "War on Men" that was just published by Fox News even blamed the 1960s sexual revolution and gender equality saying,

...the so-called rise of women has not threatened men. It has pissed them off. It has also undermined their ability to become self-sufficient in the hopes of someday supporting a family. Men want to love women, not compete with them.

    This completely misses the point that most Americans really do care about freedom, the freedom to make their own personal choices and having the economic opportunity to do so. What was so great about the '50s wasn't that Leave it to Beaver represented the typical American family, but that it was a time of reletively low income disparity in the US. Yes, the greatest generation lived during a time when the rich paid their fair share and the highest marginal income tax rate was 91%. People saw the value of organized labor and as recently as the 70s, CEOs only made an average of 26.5 times their employees. Now, CEOs make over 200 times their employee and the Right still vilifies those who fight for fairness for working people. More over, they want you to believe that they earned all that money through “hard work”, yet they nominated a CEO for President who made $20 million this year even though the only thing he has run lately is - a failed Presidential campaign.    

Today's Conservative tantrums present a great opportunity for Democrats to reach out to white middle-class male voters, a demographic they continue to struggle with. A successful effort could put the final nail in the national Republican Party's coffin. Unfortunately for the foreseeable future, Texas will not be that final nail. Here, Democrats may be winning the future demographic race but right now their inability to win moderate rural voters is crippling. Democrats share of the vote was less in 2012 than it was in 2008 and far behind Gov. Ann Richards' 49.7% in 1990. The truth is, in Texas there's a messaging gap not a demographic one - Republicans have hurt mostly-White rural Texans with their economic policies just as they have set back minorities across the board with their social policies.  Those with a stake in the longevity of the Republican Party know it must change its social and economic image to be a viable institution in the future. The party that had once drawn success from a lock-step approach to legislative victory is now in the throes of an inner party struggle between those who feel the party is purifying itself into nonexistence and those who believe a broader appeal sacrifices their conservative values. This is most evident in the Republican quest to recruit Hispanics into their ranks. Conservatives claim that Hispanics have a natural propensity to be conservative but their voting trends show something much different. Not only did Hispanics vote overwhelmingly for Obama, they are majority supporters of his more controversial policies including the Affordable Care Act and marriage equality. This suggests that even if Republicans managed to cool-down their anti-immigration rhetoric it won't be enough to sway most Latino voters. And, its likely for the same reason they lost the greater election - their economic policies just don't add up to success for the middle class.

There was a time when Republicans stood up for workers rights and fought for living wages and the end of exploitation of cheap labor. These are policies that lead to a rising standard of living and the strengthening of the middle class, but now those days are gone.  During the campaign the focus was abstract; rich vs poor, 1% vs the 99% but since voters rejected Romney's top-down economic approach the conversation has gotten more specific (Google the debacles of Hostess, Papa John's or Denny's). Fiscal conservatives need to ask themselves - who picks up the tab when full-time employees can not afford basics like housing, food or insurance? Judging by the results of the last election, taxpayers have figured out they're left on the hook and don't much like subsidizing corporate America so they don’t have to pay their employees fair wages.  I had a Twitter debate with a policy analyst for the Texas Public Policy Foundation (a right-wing "think tank") about the Walmart strikes. He said he had not heard a good argument for buying local over a mulitinational chain. When I told him, "local retailers return a total of 52% of their revenue to the local economy, compared to just 14% for the nation chain retailers”, he responded, “This is not an important economic indicator.”. That sentiment explains why Texas is so great for business but not so for children and it demonstrates that the loyalty is not to family, community or country but to upward redistribution. If Republicans want to build a coalition of voters big enough to win a national election maybe they should consider bringing some of their own gifts to the Party. In the meantime Texas Democratic leaders need to exploit the Republican's current identity crisis and remind Independents and moderates that the "good old days" were about economic prosperity brought on by policies that focused on growing wealth inside-out, not upside-down.

You of organized labor and those who have gone before you in the union movement have helped make a unique contribution to the general welfare of the Republic--the development of the American philosophy of labor. This philosophy, if adopted globally, could bring about a world, prosperous, at peace, sharing the fruits of the earth with justice to all men. It would raise to freedom and prosperity hundreds of millions of men and women--and their children--who toil in slavery behind the Curtain.  

One principle of this philosophy is: the ultimate values of mankind are spiritual; these values include liberty, human dignity, opportunity and equal rights and justice.  Workers want recognition as human beings and as individuals-before everything else. They want a job that gives them a feeling of satisfaction and self-expression. Good wages, respectable working conditions, reasonable hours, protection of status and security; these constitute the necessary foundations on which you build to reach your higher aims.  Moreover, we cannot be satisfied with welfare in the aggregate; if any group or section of citizens is denied its fair place in the common prosperity, all others among us are thereby endangered.  

The second principle of this American labor philosophy is this: the economic interest of employer and employee is a mutual prosperity.  Their economic future is inseparable. Together they must advance in mutual respect, in mutual understanding, toward mutual prosperity. Of course, there will be contest over the sharing of the benefits of production; and so we have the right to strike and to argue all night, when necessary, in collective bargaining sessions. But in a deeper sense, this surface struggle is subordinate to the overwhelming common interest in greater production and a better life for all to share.  The American worker strives for betterment not by destroying his employer and his employer's business, but by understanding his employer's problems of competition, prices, markets. And the American employer can never forget that, since mass production assumes a mass market, good wages and progressive employment practices for his employee are good business.  

The Class Struggle Doctrine of Marx was the invention of a lonely refugee scribbling in a dark recess of the British Museum. He abhorred and detested the middle class. He did not foresee that, in America, labor, respected and prosperous, would constitute--with the farmer and businessman--his hated middle class. But our second principle--that mutual interest of employer and employee--is the natural outgrowth of teamwork for progress, characteristic of the American economy where the barriers of class do not exist.  The third principle is this: labor relations will be managed best when worked out in honest negotiation between employers and unions, without Government's unwarranted interference.  This principle requires maturity in the private handling of labor matters within a framework of law, for the protection of the public interest and the rights of both labor and management.

The splendid record of labor peace and unparalleled prosperity during the last 3 years demonstrates our industrial maturity.  Some of the most difficult and unprecedented negotiations in the history of collective bargaining took place during this period, against the backdrop of non-interference by Government except only to protect the public interest, in the rare cases of genuine national emergency. This third principle, relying as it does on collective bargaining, assumes that labor organizations and management will both observe the highest standards of integrity, responsibility, and concern for the national welfare.  You are more than union members bound together by a common goal of better wages, better working conditions, and protection of your security. You are American citizens.  The roads you travel, the schools your children attend, the taxes you pay, the standards of integrity in Government, the conduct of the public business is your business as Americans. And while all of you, as to the public business, have a common goal--a stronger and better America--your views as to the best means of reaching that goal vary widely, just as they do in any other group of American citizens.  

So in your new national organization, as well as in your many constituent organizations, you have a great opportunity of making your meetings the world's most effective exhibit of democratic processes. In those meetings the rights of minorities holding differing social, economic, and political views must be scrupulously protected and their views accurately reflected. In this way, as American citizens you will help the Republic correct the faulty, fortify the good, build stoutly for the future, and reinforce the most cherished freedoms of each individual citizen.  This country has long understood that by helping other peoples to a better understanding and practice of representative government, we strengthen both them and ourselves. The same truth applies to the economic field. We strengthen other peoples and ourselves when we help them to understand the workings of a free economy, to improve their own standards of living, and to join with us in world trade that serves to unite us all.

In the world struggle, some of the finest weapons for all Americans are these simple tenets of free labor. They are again: mart is created in the Divine image and has spiritual aspirations that transcend the material; second, the real interests of employers and employees are mutual; third, unions and employers can and should work out their own destinies. As we preach and practice that message without cease, we will wage a triumphant crusade for prosperity, freedom, and peace among men.  To close, it is fitting that we let our hearts be filled with the earnest prayer that, with the help of a kind Providence, the world may be led out of bitterness and materialism and force into a new era of harmony and spiritual growth and self-realization for all men. Thank you very much.

McClendon: Texas Should Adopt a Standard Policy for Transfer of College Credits

by: Michael Hurta

Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 02:22 PM CST

I want to thank the Editorial Board of the Express-News for the Editorial published on November 21st, calling for a standardized, statewide approach to the transfer of higher education course credits.   I could not agree more with your summary of the current problem and the need for a solution:  "Texas high schools, community colleges and public four-year universities have operated in a vacuum for too long. . . .  If Texas is truly serious about providing low-cost options in higher education, the work needs to start with ensuring students are not wasting their time and money taking courses that don't transfer. "  The good news is, the call has been answered.

On November 12, I pre-filed House Bill 82, which provides for public institutions of higher education in this state to adopt a single common course numbering system. The development of this Bill was several months in the making, and I am grateful to have had excellent help from important and highly-credible experts in the field.  Representatives from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, Alamo Colleges, the University of Texas at San Antonio, Texas State University, Texas A&M; University-San Antonio, and Austin Community College participated thoughtfully, and collaborated with each other and with me in this effort.  Starting last spring, we met many times, exploring the issues and examining potential solutions, until we reached a consensus.  It may not be easy, but it will be well worth the effort to undertake the implementation of a single common course numbering system.

The purpose of H.B. 82 is to streamline and design clear pathways to earn an undergraduate degree, whether a student transfer immediately following community college or later.  A single common course numbering system will ensure that appropriate courses will actually transfer and count toward the student's degree plan.  It will replace a cumbersome, complex and expensive system of evaluating transcripts and reduce time for Pell grant eligibility, which requires full application of all courses.

This will help the state, students, and local taxpayers save millions of dollars by eliminating the need to complete unnecessary courses or repeat necessary ones.  Having a state-wide plan will simplify the transfer process for students and enhance the effectiveness of student advising, rather than spending administrative time and effort crafting and implementing individual college-to-university articulation agreements and many "memoranda of understanding." Students will be able to optimize their community college efforts toward a bachelor's degree, with much less waste of their own money, higher education loans, and state money.  Once accepted to a four-year university, community college transfer students will no longer have to surmount a wall of obstacles to earn their undergraduate degree.  This will improve graduation outcomes for our community colleges and our state universities.

The Bill gives the Higher Education Coordinating Board until June 1, 2014, to adopt procedures for implementing the single common course numbering system.  All public higher education institutions would have time to transition.  The single common course system would be in place for all courses offered, in time for the 2018-2019 academic year.

We've launched the boat.  Now, the next step is to make sure the Bill is navigated through the legislative waters to enactment.  All those who support this concept need to be heard.  Write your State Representatives and Senators.  Attend the public hearings, or send your written testimony to the Committee Chairs in the House and Senate.  You, the public, have the opportunity to help make this happen.  Now is the time.

Representative McClendon currently serves on the House Committee on Appropriations and the House Committee on Transportation.  She also serves as Chair of the House Committee on Rules & Resolutions.  The 83rd Regular Legislative Session will be her ninth term serving Texas House District 120.

Rick Perry Named Worst Candidate of 2012

by: Ben Sherman

Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 01:59 PM CST

There was the decidedly odd speech that Perry gave in New Hampshire. There was a series of debate performances in which Perry seemed (at best) thinly-versed on the issues of the day. And then there was Perry's brain freeze in a November debate in which he simply could not remember the third federal agency he wanted to eliminate - a lock-up that he punctuated with his now-famous "Oops." (Even these many months later, the Fix stomach churns watching the Perry clip; it has to be among the most awkward moments in the history of politics.)

While it was probably over for Perry before "oops," it was definitely over for him afterwards. He finished fifth in the Iowa caucuses, sixth (with ONE percent) in the New Hampshire primaries and then dropped out of the race before the South Carolina primary. (In a final coup de grace of bad political judgment, Perry endorsed the presidential candidacy of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.)

Rick Perry will likely never shake his "oops" moment because it was more than a gaffe. His whole campaign was an "oops" moment, one terrible mistake after another that revealed not a bad campaign but an incompetent, know-nothing candidate. Perry somehow managed to add to the damage the national reputation of Texas governors done by President Bush.

The fact that he's publicly considering running for re-election in 2014 and possibly for president again in 2016 is downright sad.

Coleman: "I would like to believe that Texas is better than what we are seeing."

by: Michael Hurta

Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 10:00 AM CST

Monday was Veteran's Day, a day which should have been spent honoring those who served our country. For many people, however, it was instead a day to join thousands of other Texans in signing a deeply disturbing petition for Texas to secede from the United States of America.

The online petition, which currently has around 60,000 signatures and counting, is unfortunately not surprising. Ever since the election of this country's first black President, there has been a surge of  rhetoric that had mostly lied dormant since the civil war and subsequent Jim Crow era. After the election of President Obama, however, Governor Perry, whose hunting ranch was named "Niggerhead" until just recently, openly hinted at succession, and we spent much of last session talking about things like "states' rights," including a "Committee on State Sovereignty" and a House Resolution incorrectly asserting the state's "rights under the Tenth Amendment." This kind of rhetoric needs to end.

Unfortunately, we don't have to wonder what an independent Texas would look like; we already know. The Republican majority has made it their priority to underfund public and higher education, make it as hard as possible for certain populations to make their voices heard at the polls, and strip away healthcare benefits from needy families. In many cases, the only reason this state's safety net programs are not more draconian are federal mandates preventing lawmakers from defunding programs even further. To illustrate, when Texan lawmakers say they want more "flexibility" in Medicaid, what they are really saying is that they want the flexibility to push more people off. An independent Texas would allow these lawmakers the freedom to defund education and healthcare as much as they'd like.

Their pyrrhic victory, however, would be short-lived. Our state's demographics are such that the predominantly white Republican political majority will soon give way to a diverse and progressive one. The ultimate irony of their neo-confederate rhetoric is that they would be creating a nation comprised mostly of people of color. This diverse new nation - with an economy roughly equal to that of all the Scandinavian countries combined - would not long tolerate the kind of hateful speech that we are now seeing.

The United States is the greatest nation on earth because we work together; let's not move backwards. I would like to believe that Texas is better than what we are seeing. This divisive rhetoric may be part of the state's unfortunate past, but it doesn't have to be our future. It's offensive and completely contrary to what this country is all about: one Nation, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All.

Garnet Coleman is a State Representative from Houston who was first elected over 20 years ago in 1991. He has served as chair the Texas Legislative Study Group and is on the Board of Directors of the Progressive States Network.

Junior Statesmen of America Take Over Capitol to Promote Civic Education

by: Ben Sherman

Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 03:36 PM CST

JSA isn't what most people think of when they think of high school debate. Debates take place in rooms with lots of seating, and there are regularly over fifty students watching any one debate. There is a "pro" and "con" speaker, as expected, but between their speeches, the audience is invited to participate in "Thought Talk" about the topic. Students can come up to the microphone and give their view on the topic, which allows for a wide variety of considerations to be laid out on the table. There is no judge determining the outcome of the debate. Instead, the resolution is put to a vote.

Though I was quite displeased with the vote against the Buffett Rule at one debate I attended, this is a very useful format for students wanting to dip their toe into civic dialogue. The lack of a judge frees up points of contention and gives students insight into which arguments "sell" to audiences. I learned from the Buffett Rule debate that letting charges of "tax punishment" go without a reply of "tax fairness" and an explanation of Clinton-era tax rates leading to economic success leaves the debate on an inefficiently philosophical level.

I talked to Hywel Soney from Plano Senior High School, the official speaker in favor of the Buffett Rule, about the debate. Though he admitted that his side had an overall lack of rhetorical efficiency, he furthered his points with an impressive litany of reasons to support the Buffett Rule. He said that JSA is a very good entry way for students, both those in other debate leagues and those uninvolved, to "consider the issues and start taking a stand." Soney said JSA is "actively growing" and will benefit from the Internet-boosted proliferation of political knowledge. "It's important to know about the issues before our country and discuss them, and JSA is very good at harnessing them. That's why I think JSA will continue growing," he said.

Enabling civic engagement - very important in Texas.

AWESOME: Rick Perry Lets Federal Government Design Texas's Health Insurance Exchange

by: Ben Sherman

Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 03:01 PM CST

Perry's office has sent Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius a letter declaring the state will not set up its own health insurance exchange.

"This is a federally-mandated exchange with rules dictated by Washington," Perry's letter said. "It would not be fiscally responsible to put hard-working Texans on the financial hook for an unknown amount of money to operate a system under rules that have not even been written." Under the Affordable Care Act, that leaves two options: the federal government will partner with Texas to design the exchange or will design it for Texas.

What happened to being "Fed Up!," conservative? Now that Obamacare is here to stay (did you see what the American people said last Tuesday?), wouldn't you want Texas to design the exchange? Apparently Rick Perry is more dedicated to rhetorical opposition against the Affordable Care Act than executing his stupid opposition to the law. The complete negative tone of that letter suggests that Texas will also forgo a partnership with the federal government, instead opting to let them set up our insurance exchange.

Awesome. Our federal government will do a much better job of setting up an exchange that actually works for us. Rick Perry's never-ending administration, aided by the corporatist cretins running the Legislature, have been a complete disaster for Texans' health care. At 25 percent (6.2 million), our state is home to the highest proportion of uninsured Americans in the country.

If Perry thinks he's sticking it to the federal government by letting them set up the exchange, he's wrong. Our exchange will be much stronger for his decision, which will simultaneously show many Texans the benefits of a smart federal government and how stupid our state government was and is for opposing the Affordable Care Act. And what about when Perry and his ilk run for re-election in 2014 on an anti-Obamacare platform, just as the exchange is starting to take effect? There's a very good chance that'll increase voter turnout against the Republicans.

The glimmer of hope in a Republican state is Republicans' inevitable unraveling. They don't have a governing philosophy designed to improve the lives of all Texans. That's why they're on their way out.

Travis County Prop 1 Safe From Lawsuit

by: Edward Garris

Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 10:30 AM CST

Three private parties and a PAC had filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in federal district court in Austin on November 7.  They sought to bar the canvassing of the ballots for Proposition 1.  The PAC is Travis County Taxpayers Union Special Political Action Committee (the "PAC").  They claimed that the ballot language of Prop 1 violated (1) Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (the "Act"), (2) the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, (3) the due-course-of-law provision of the Texas Constitution, and (4) the Texas Election Code.  

What was the basis for these violations?  The PAC and other plaintiffs in the suit contended that the language on the Proposition 1 ballot violated the Voting Rights Act by discriminating "against voters with a less reading comprehension, and particularly among minority voters."

To restate, the plaintiffs were intervening on behalf of minorities who had never asked for their help in the first place, attempting to vacate their vote, and doing so in the name of the Voting Rights Act, which was enacted specifically to ensure that the will of minorities at the ballot box would be realized, rather than suppressed - or vacated in a lawsuit.  Moreover, they rested their claims on the assertion that those minorities were too ignorant to understand the ballot on which they voted.

Rudyard Kipling, anyone?

The plaintiffs also argued that while language concerning the purpose of a bond issue may be included in a ballot bond proposition, informational language concerning the purpose of a tax increase could not be so included.

In denying the motion for a preliminary injunction, Judge Lee Yeakel found that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits (a prerequisite for granting a preliminary injunction prior to trial), and that there was no immediate harm from canvassing the ballots.  Specifically, he noted that the plaintiffs provided absolutely no legal authority for their argument that the ballot language violated the Act.  Moreover, Judge Yeakel pointed out that evidentiary affidavits supporting the motion were undated and that the lawsuit was filed before the petitioners (who claimed to be confused by the ballot language) had even voted.

For now, therefore, the result is that the canvassing of the ballots will go on as planned on Monday.

The order may be viewed here.

Most Important Election You Have Not Heard About

by: jvansickle

Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 00:50 PM CST

Darlene Ewing has served as County Chair for the Dallas County Democratic Party since her election in 2005 after what many observers consider the disastrous tenure of Susan Hays.  During Darlene's tenure, the DCDP has gone from a county party mired in financial problems to one that controls all 60 countywide offices plus a super-majority (4 out of 5 seats) on the Dallas County Commissioner's Court.  In early 2012, Darlene announced at a County Executive Committee meeting that this would be her final term.

Many party insiders have suspected that Darlene would resign her position sometime in early 2013.  This would lead to Precinct Chairs electing a new County Chair who would then serve through the upcoming 2014 Democratic Primary and possibly beyond.  The goal would be to give the newly elected chair time to settle into the position and get their staff onboard before either the Primary or General Elections begin.  This is the same path that Dallas Republicans chose in 2011 when former County Judge candidate Wade Emmert took over as County Chair.

Dallas is the second largest Democratic county in Texas with 52 local countywide offices (47 of them judges) up for re-election in 2014.  All held by Democrats.   The chief concern among party insiders is that a potentially contentious County Chair primary battle and subsequent turnover of county party staff in May 2014 could negatively affect the DCDP's ability to run an effective Coordinated Campaign in the 2014 General Election.  These were similar concerns voiced in 2010 and 2012 when Sean Hubbard and Lymon King were respectively considering a run for County Chair.

What does the County Chair do in Dallas?

1) Hire or fire the Executive Director who oversees day-to-day functioning of the local county party
2) Hire or fire the Campaign Manager who oversees the Coordinated Campaign during partisan election cycles
3) Run the County Executive Committee meetings that meet once every quarter
4) Run the local Democratic Primary election for Dallas County
5) Be the face of the DCDP to local media and county functions

So how will this County Chair transition work?

If Gromer is correct, it is likely that would put the election in either May or June to give candidates time to campaign among Precinct Chairs, Democratic clubs, and organizations.  Once the new County Chair is elected, they will then hire an Executive Director, which is currently an open position after Steve Tillery resigned in September 2012.  The DCDP also employs a Bookkeeper and Office Manager who work at the pleasure of the County Chair.  The County Chair and their staff will then have roughly 6 months to settle in before filing begins for the 2014 Democratic Primary.

The County Chair who wins must then also run in the 2014 Democratic Primary, ironically, also while running the Primary itself.  If there is a contested Primary and the newly elected County Chair loses, then the DCDP gets to have the transition of office staff all over again, but this time taking place in the middle of the 2014 General Election while also trying to heal possible wounds opened from a contentious primary fight.

What about past County Chair elections?

An argument can be made that changing demographics and anger at Republicans on a national stage helped local Democrats win in 2006.  However, the fact that Dallas Democrats have expanded that initial success, even in disastrous years like 2010, shows why having a strong and competent County Chair is important to future successes in Dallas County.  The election also has wider implications for Democrats across Texas.  Statewide candidates need the strong turnout of Democrats in Dallas to have a chance at winning.  If Dallas is disorganized and uncoordinated in its GOTV efforts, then up-ballot candidates for statewide office will feel the pinch just as badly down-ballot candidates do.

So what comes next?

James Van Sickle
james@darwood.us
Darwood Technology
Darwood Facebook Page

George Bush: The Leader of the New Texas GOP?

by: David Feigen

Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 05:00 PM CST

No, unfortunately I'm not talking about the "misunderestimated" former President in hiding, but his nephew, George Prescott Bush.

The Washington Post reported last week that George P. Bush had made the necessary campaign filings to run for office in Texas. For a few days speculation of what office that might be circulated around Texas political circles. Unfortunately, it appears, we will not see Bush challenge George Bush impersonator Governor Rick Perry, in what would be an enormously entertaining Republican Civil War. At least not yet.

Reports indicate that Bush is eyeing the job of Texas Land Commissioner, who authorizes exploration and exploitation of public lands. Generally, this includes leasing for gas and oil production, mining, grazing, and monitoring the environmental quality of public lands and waters.

The news was broken by Bush's father, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, in a fundraising letter . Governor Bush writes, "The office that George is considering running for is Land Commissioner which overseas the mineral rights, commercial real estate owned and sovereign submerged lands of the State of Texas as well as veterans affairs and historic archives." He goes on to praise George's accomplishments and record and pleads for a donation to his campaign.

The Bush family's reemergence into Texas politics through George P. Bush was inevitable. Bush has been building his brand through his work as the co-founder of Hispanic Republicans of Texas, a group that seeks to elect Hispanic candidates, and in his outreach to college students.

Even Texas Republicans are smart enough to understand that they have a big problem with the increasingly active and vocal Latino population, and this George Bush will play a pivotal role in their plan to compete. It would be wise to view this move by Bush as the start of much bigger plans. Fox News Latino (Yes this actually exists) even wrote that George P. Bush has begun his "road to the White House." This is premature of course, but Texas Democrats need to understand the potential significance and ramifications of the return of the Bush machine.

I would hope our nation is smart enough not to elect a third George Bush to the Presidency. As a wise President once said, "Fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again."