In covering the American Jewish Committee/World Affairs Council of Houston senate candidate forum on foreign policy I mentioned previously, we have a news story that is demonstrably deficient in several areas:
You get told who wasn’t there (Craig James, Paul Sadler, and Lt. Governor Chupacabra), and even how many of each flavor were there (“six Republicans, three Democrats and one Libertarian”), but the article itself only lists five of those ten. That would be the very first “W” of the “Five Ws and an H,” assuming they still teach that at journalism school. (Maybe they’re replaced it with another class on “Reporting Social Justice.”)
However, because I’m so Old School, I actually went out and got a list of who attended the forum from the AJC: Republicans Ted Cruz, Tom Leppert, Glenn Addison, Lela Pittinger, Charles Holcomb, and Ben Gambini (yes, an actual Ben Gambini sighting!), Democrats Daniel Boone and Jason Gibson, Libertarian Jon Roland, and independent candidate Mike Champion. So it turns out that even the summary of candidate affiliations was wrong.
In an article on a foreign policy forum that runs just shy of 500 words, a grand total of 96 of them actually dealt with the candidate’s foreign policy views, and even those are essentially free of concrete information. Let’s repost those parts in their entirety:
Cruz also said that “President Obama has been the most anti-Israel president this nation has ever seen.”
[snip]
Leppert emphasized his experience as an international businessman familiar with issues of currency and international trade.
[snip]
Cruz and Leppert were the only two candidates who were able to respond with practiced ease to a series of sophisticated questions dealing with world affairs, ranging from Israel’s response to the Iranian nuclear threat to whether the United States should help bail out faltering European economies. Most of the others on the stage seemed unfamiliar with even the most basic foreign-policy issues.
That’s it. That’s the extent of coverage of the candidates’ foreign policy views in a forum dedicated to that very subject. We are no wiser as to what any candidate thinks of our troops levels in Afghanistan, what our relations with Pakistan should be, whether we should help topple the Assad regime in Syria, how to counter an increasingly bold China, or whether we should use military force to prevent the Islamic Republic of Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Were those topics covered? We don’t know, as Holley and the Chronicle do not deign to tell us.
Instead of giving the candidates’ actual views, Holley merely gives us his dismissive analysis of eight of the ten candidates, telling us they are “unfamiliar with even the most basic foreign-policy issues” without bothering to provide a single example of this ignorance.
The rest of the piece consists of horse race analysis, noting Dewhurst’s absence, audience attendance figures, and an interview with a random forum attendee. All of which would have been fine in a longer piece.
Joe Holley and/or his editor have missed a chance to actually inform their readers. I have a hard time thinking of a blogger who couldn’t have done a better job.
OK, they didn’t use quite that language (and I must prepend the usual I Am Not a Lawyer disclaimer). But in issuing the decision (they had previously blocked the District Courts’ maps), the Supremes did say the San Antonio District Court had exceeded its authority in drawing new redistricting maps for Texas for no clear reason, and ordered the District Court to go back to the drawing board and create maps closer to what the legislation passed in the first place:
Because it is unclear whether the District Court for the Western District of Texas followed the appropriate standards in drawing interim maps for the 2012 Texas elections, the orders implementing those maps are vacated,and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Time and time again in this decision, the Supreme Court criticizes the District Court for their approach:
“To the extent the District Court exceeded its mission to draw interim maps that do not violate the Constitution or the Voting Rights Act, and substituted its own concept of ‘the collective public good’ for the Texas Legislature’s determination of which policies serve ‘the interests of the citizens of Texas,’ the court erred.”
“Because the District Court here had the benefit of a recently enacted plan to assist it, the court had neither the need nor the license to cast aside that vital aid.”
“Some specific aspects of the District Court’s plans seem to pay adequate attention to the State’s policies, others do not, and the propriety of still others is unclear.”
“The District Court also erred in refusing to split voting precincts (called “voter tabulation districts” in Texas) in drawing the interim plans.”
“The District Court also appears to have unnecessarily ignored the State’s plans in drawing certain individual districts.”
“The court’s approach in drawing other districts was unclear.”
Time in time again, the Supreme Court said to the District Court: “You screwed up. The State government has the responsibility to perform redistricting, and you shouldn’t overturn their work without explicit Voting Rights Acts reason, and you went and did it anyway.”
Justice Clarence Thomas concurred with the opinion, but went even further, declaring that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (the section requiring judicial preclearance of voting districts) was unconstitutional:
In my view, Texas’ failure to timely obtain §5 preclearance of its new plans is no obstacle to their implementation, because, as I have previously explained, §5 is unconstitutional…Although Texas’ new plans are being challenged on the grounds that they violate the Federal Constitution and §2 of the Voting Rights Act, they have not yet been found to violate any law. Accordingly, Texas’ duly enacted redistricting plans should govern the upcoming elections. I would therefore vacate the interim orders and remand for the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas to consider appellees’ constitutional and §2 challenges in the ordinary course.
Presumably, a more chastised District Court will come back in short order with a map that more closely resembles what the legislature passed, and not one designed to give Democrats in the court room what they couldn’t achieve at the ballot box.
Washington, D.C. – Nevada Senator Harry Reid released the following statement today on the Senate’s PROTECT I.P. Act:
“In light of recent events, I have decided to postpone Tuesday’s vote on the PROTECT I.P. Act.
“There is no reason that the legitimate issues raised by many about this bill cannot be resolved. Counterfeiting and piracy cost the American economy billions of dollars and thousands of jobs each year, with the movie industry alone supporting over 2.2 million jobs. We must take action to stop these illegal practices. We live in a country where people rightfully expect to be fairly compensated for a day’s work, whether that person is a miner in the high desert of Nevada, an independent band in New York City, or a union worker on the back lots of a California movie studio.
“I admire the work that Chairman Leahy has put into this bill. I encourage him to continue engaging with all stakeholders to forge a balance between protecting Americans’ intellectual property, and maintaining openness and innovation on the internet. We made good progress through the discussions we’ve held in recent days, and I am optimistic that we can reach a compromise in the coming weeks.”
A “compromise.” That means “we only want to censor you a little. Or, we want to wait until the heat is off before we get back to screwing you. (Hat tip: Penny Arcade.)
Sadly, the Republican leadership isn’t sounding much better. My quick and dirty impression is that the rank-and-file Republican members of the House and Senate closest to the Tea Party have gotten the message, good and hard, but that the leadership is still putting their fingers in their ears and thinking they’ll be fine if they just keep humming until to furor dies down.
They must be disabused of this notion.
I would urge you to contact your representative and tell them you don’t want SOPA/PIPA “delayed” or “fixed,” you want it killed dead and a stake driven through it’s heart. Or, to quote Spinal Tap, “just crank that volume to the point of pain.” They must come to dread your wrath more than the thought of losing campaign contributions from the MPAA/RIAA.
By my eyeball count, 40 of those 65 congresscritters still supporting SOPA are Democrats (plus one gray box that I assume is Socialist Bernie Sanders), whereas 56 of 101 opposing it are Republicans.
Those of us charting the protest yesterday were struck by how most of the lawmakers turning against the bill were Republicans. If you look at the latest whip count on PIPA, for example, you see that more Republicans oppose it at this point than Democrats.
(snip)
The Tea Party has struck fear into their party; the progressive movement inspires laughter.
Finally, isn’t it funny how lots of the same people who decried the Citizens United ruling are singing the praises of Google, Wikipdia, et. al. for weighing in on SOPA?
If corporations have no First Amendment rights, why can’t federal or state or local governments single out, say, Wikimedia Foundation for its SOPA/PIPA blackout? Why can’t they penalize or fine or even dissolve it? Why can’t they single Wikimedia Foundation out for disproportionate enforcement of unrelated laws in retaliation for disfavored speech?
I expect the campaigns to start announcing Q4 fundraising results any day now, and I just sent off a list of interview questions to the Craig James campaign today. So here’s one final news roundup of the senate race before an expected avalanche of news.
Cruz, Dewhurst, Tom Leppert and James will all be appearing at a March 2 debate sponsored by The Dallas Morning News.
An interesting piece on a David Dewhurst proposal (or maybe just a trial balloon idea) for, not an illegal alien amnesty “path to citizenship,” but a path to a work visa, in which “if an undocumented/Illegal resident paid for thumb prints, criminal background checks, and verification of residence, we could grant them a two year Visa…renewable only if they have not been convicted of a felony and have paid their taxes.” I’m not sure if this is the right place to mention it. I’m not in complete agreement with the writer, but I will say that Dewhurst’s proposal is far from the worst illegal alien proposal I’ve read.
Back on October 11, I noted that Cruz had picked up the endorsements of “over 115 leaders of the Texas Federation of Republican Women.” The Cruz campaign has now upped that count to over 200 leader Republican women.
Still waiting for Democrats Paul Sadler to put up a campaign website, and Jason Gibson to put up one that’s more than a placeholder. Come on people, putting up a page with a brief bio and a donation link is not that freaking hard. With Daniel Boone not having updated his pages in over a month, maybe Sean Hubbard will capture the Democratic nomination simply because he can update his Facebook and Twitter feeds.
Insta linked to this Taylor Marsh piece about how she, as a liberal, is Totally Fed Up with Obama and the Democratic Party. I’m a bit less impressed with its significance (or sincerity) than he was, even ignoring the usual parade of liberal straw-man conservatives, mainly because of the sheer cringing cowardice of the timing. It’s like a scrawny guy at a bar going “Did you hear Mike Tyson call that woman a bitch? If he were here right now, I’d totally kick his ass!” five minutes after Tyson left.
Sure you would, champ.
Obama and other top Democrats have proven that their main priority is increasing the size and scope of the federal government, and using the benefits of that increased size and scope to rake off profits and pay off their cronies and interest groups. They’ve been doing that for three years, just like they’ve been ignoring that progressive wish list (closing Gitmo, ending predator drone strikes, ending the Bush tax cuts, etc.) for the same period of time, and now is when you’re finally fed up?
Right.
You know when your cries of outrage might have had an actual effect? Three to six months ago, when it was still possible for Obama to face a serious primary challenge from the left. But for all their theatrical outrage over “secret Republican” Obama, not a single high profile liberal Democrat stepped up to challenge him in the Democratic Presidential Primary. Not one. And now that it’s absolutely too late for that to happen, Taylor Marsh makes high-minded, ego-flattering noises about how she’s willing to leave the Democratic Party.
Sure she is.
You know why the Republican establishment had to take the Tea Party seriously? They took scalps. Marco Rubio kicked Charlie Crist to the curb, Christine O’Donnell knocked off Mike Castle, and Joe Miller forced Lisa Murkowski to run as an independent. That’s when the GOP establishment knew the Tea Party was too dangerous to take for granted. Micky Kaus noted that those challenges are what probably killed the illegal alien amnesty DREAM act: “By my count, Miller’s primary coup may have helped gain around ten votes by terrifying GOP incumbents who might otherwise have been tempted by the prospect of a feel-good, bipartisan, MSM-approved pro-DREAM stand.”
Until liberals are willing to mount real primary challenges to big-name Democrats, all their talk of disenchantment with the party is just so much vainglorious posturing. And as for their votes being “up for grabs” in November? Please. Not a single one of them will be pulling the lever for Rick Perry or Mitt Romney to spite Obama. They know it, we know it, and Obama knows it.
Maybe at some point down the line liberals really will become fed up with being taken for granted by the Democratic Party (not to mention the endemic crony capitalism corruption), and put some actual skin in the game. Until then, they’re just lap dog Chihuahuas pretending they’re Dobermans.
On December 19, I reported two additional Democrats, Eric Roberson and John Morton, joining the Senate race because their names appeared on the official list of Democratic candidates, bringing the total of Democratic candidates to seven.
However, the next day, Eric Roberson would be off the list, having filed for another race.
Strangely enough, today the name of John Morton is no longer found on the official list of Democratic candidates. No explanation for his disappearance, though I have sent a query to the Texas Democratic Party for clarification.
That leaves five democratic candidates: Sean Hubbard, Daniel Boone, Jason Gibson, Paul Sadler, and Addie Dainell Allen.
At the current rate, all Democratic candidates will be off the ballot by mid-January…
Like everyone else, political wonks are taking off for Christmas, so just a few tiny bits of Senate race news:
Tom Leppert appeared on the Janet Mefferd Show:
With Ricardo Sanchez out of the race, Texas Democrats face a Latino problem.
So how do you write up a summary of the Senate race, and manage to list every Democrat in the race except Sean Hubbard, and every Republican in the race except Glenn Addison and Lela Pittenger, and misspell Curt Cleaver’s name to boot? Did the Wichita Falls Times Record News let all their fact checkers take the week off for Christmas?
Of all the declared longshots who failed to file for the race I queried as to their intentions, only Andrew Castanuela wrote to say he was pursuing a campaign as a write-in candidate, which seems a fairly futile course of action for someone whose last name is not Murkowski.
Of course, this is probably just a fundraising ploy. Surely the organization born with the express purpose of sweeping Bill Clinton’s perjury under the rug can depend on Bubba leaning on a few cronies to throw them some scratch, And there’s always George Soros, assuming he’s not tapped out from helping other arms of the Democratic Party like Media Matters, Barack Obama, and The Texas Tribune.
But it would be quite satisfying to see Nutroots Patient Zero (as far as I know; feel free to offer better candidates in the comments) go the way of Geocities and John Edwards’ political career…
With all the coming and the going and the filing and the GLAVEN, it’s been a crazy few days keeping up with the Texas senate race. I even went back today to see if their were any stragglers who hadn’t been updated on the Republican and Democratic candidate websites yesterday. There were no additions but, interestingly, there was one subtraction (see below).
Of course, there may be another scramble when the filing period opens up again next year after a Supreme Court decision on redistricting. Keep watching the skies…
I evidently missed this back in October, but the Texas Home School Coalition PAC endorsed Ted Cruz.
Addison also resigned from the Magnolia ISD board to concentrate on his senate race. Given that he stated the board was responsible for his gray hair at one of the candidate forums, maybe it wasn’t a hard decision…
David Dewhurst scoffs at the idea that Craig James’ entry in the race will force him into a runoff. As well he should. He was already headed for a runoff.
Newly minted candidate Paul Sadler gets some love from the Houston Chronicle. Of course, saying he was a big player in state legislative issues in the 1990s is pretty much tantamount to saying “Who?”
Indeed, some are already saying that the Democratic primary is a two man race between Sadler and Jason A. Gibson, ignoring the fact that Sean Hubbard has been running for most of the year, and that Daniel Boone has the tremendous asset of being named Daniel Boone. That article also notes that Gibson is president of the Houston Trial Lawyers Association, which would suggest access to a healthy amount of campaign funding.
A bit more on Sadler, who lost a runoff election to Republican Kevin Eltife in a 2004 state senate race.
Sadler also emailed back to say that he didn’t have a website up yet. “Hopefully, within a week or so.”
One oddity: Remember former Republican turned Independent turned Democrat Eric Roberson, who showed up on the list of candidates late yesterday? Well, his name was gone today…possibly because he also shows as a candidate for Place 11 on the 5th Court of Appeals.
I’ve sent emails to Andrew Castanuela, Stanley Garza, and Virgil Bierschwale, whose names do not appear the filing lists for the Republican and Democratic Senate primaries, to ask if they’ve abandoned their campaigns. I’ll let you know when I find out.
Conversely, if Ben Gambini, John Morton, or Addie Dainell Allen are reading this, you might send a comment or email to let me know who you are and why you’re running for the senate.
First interview with Craig James about his Senate run. My apologies for the crappy WFAA flash video implementation:
Finally, for commentator “John Doe”: No, I’m not going to post an un-sourced, laundry list of lurid accusations against a candidate (not even a Democrat) from an anonymous troll. Try again when you can cite a source for your accusations.
