Burnt Orange Report

Sherry Boyles Running for State Chair

By Byron LaMasters

And I think that she's one of a few people that would make for a great chair for our party. Check out her website from her run for railroad commissioner. She brings a lot to the table with her campaign. She's young, articulate, attractive, gives a good speech and stays on message (and it's a good message). She also has a pretty strong resume and is widely respected throughout the party. Here's her annoucement via the Quorum Report:

Announcement by Sherry Boyles to Run for State Democratic Party Chair

(AUSTIN) I am running for State Party chair because I am deeply concerned about the direction of our state. At every turn, Democrats fight for laws that would create jobs, improve our schools, and make sure we do the right thing for our fellow Texans. The Republican majority fights for their friends who got them into office with big bucks.

With these big bucks, Republicans engage in marketing campaigns that make you think they are for grandma and little Jimmy down the street. But don’t look at TV ads, look at the votes. When you look at how Republicans actually vote, it doesn’t make sense that Texans would send them to Austin. Texas voters need to know that Republicans are voting against Texans’ pocketbooks, against excellence in education, and against compassion.

Democrats understand the value of education to our economy. Democrats create college scholarship programs while Republicans vote against them. They can talk all they want, but I’m talking about votes. Ask them why they cut the Texas Grant scholarship program, for example.

Democrats fight for funding for excellent teachers and public schools. Republicans cut funding for teachers and schools. This year, the Republican majority succeeded in slashing funds for textbooks for our students. The votes are on record. Texas parents are furious that their schools are choosing which enrichment programs to cut due to financial woes. But school funding took a back seat to drawing new districts so more Republicans can vote against good education laws.

Democrats fight for our most vulnerable Texans so that all Texans have the chance to live well and get through tough times. Republicans cut funding for child health care and for elderly Texans to get the care they need.

I grew up on a farm in East Texas with a father who was a Baptist preacher and my mother was the church pianist and a school teacher. I learned about hard work and taking responsibility. But more important, I learned to care about other people. I know what compassion is and there is nothing about compassion that blames people for pain and poverty. We tell ourselves lies and pretend it is okay to not care about another human being.

Well, it’s not okay that people are losing jobs. It’s not okay that small business owners don’t get the same priority as big corporations. It’s not okay that parents can’t afford health insurance for their families. It’s not okay that our schools can’t pay for textbooks. It’s not okay to act as though people who suffer deserve it.

We talk in big numbers of thousands of children and millions of families affected by laws. But these are people with names.

I will never forget the grandmother who testified before the Legislature a few months ago. She was taking care of her four grandchildren alone. You see, she had lost her daughter and son-in-law in a car accident. She was caring for their four children on a fixed income of $600 per month.

She told the committee in Austin that there were two options. She could get a little help to care for her grandchildren in her loving home. The other option--she would have to give up her grandchildren for taxpayers to pay for these children to live in a foster home. With a Republican majority in the Legislature, the grandmother didn’t stand a chance.

They didn’t care that it would be more costly for the children to go to foster care or that it would affect the children’s lives forever. They are not for grandma’s and little Jimmy’s who may need a grandma to care for them someday.

Our elected officials have an obligation to care about all Texans and to do what’s best for all of us. Texas Democrats fight for all of us so we all have hope and opportunity to pursue our dreams. That’s why I’m a Democrat and that’s why it’s important to me to work on behalf of this party.

Overview of Houston City Races

By Byron LaMasters

Greg's Opinion has a great overview of the city races over on his blog. Greg, along with Charles Kuffner do a great job of covering city politics. Check out Charles' Local Politics section. Like both of them, I support Bill White for mayor of Houston. I don't have a good reason, really. I don't follow Houston city politics enough, but he's clearly the best choice considering that Orlando Sanchez is a Republican and Sylvester Turner sold out to the Craddick leadership team most of last session. Bill White seems like a decent guy with good stands on most issues and with a solid track record. That's hardly an analysis, rather just my view as an outsider with cursory interest in the race.

How Stupid is TOO Stupid?

By Byron LaMasters

No, I'm not talking about our president, but rather about an Austin schoolbus driver who got a DWI:

An Austin school district bus driver has been arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated — with children in the bus — after police said they found her at the helm of the bus in Southwest Austin on Friday afternoon.

Christina Bell Lowery, 47, has been released from the Travis County Jail on a $7,500 bond.

Police said a student on the bus called her father during the ride and said she was concerned that the bus had stopped at a fast-food restaurant. The father showed up a few minutes later and called police.

Authorities said the bus then began moving again and eventually ended up on Escarpment Boulevard, where Lowery was arrested.

There ought to be harsher penalties for people who drive schoolbuses while intoxicated. That's just obscenely irresponsible... and stupid.

Why I Still Support Dean

By Andrew Dobbs

Like Byron, I really truly dislike George Bush. I think that he has been an awful president and I think that these 4 years have been terribly destructive to our country. I also believe that another term would harm America irreparably and be devastating to the Democratic Party. I also believe that we must be practical and look at who will best unseat this president and enliven our party for the sake of taking back the Congress in 2004. There are 7 candidates that have some reasonable shot at winning the nomination and they'd all be better than Bush by a longshot. But one has the best shot of winning and only one can create a movement to dramatically change our country for the better in the process. That man is Howard Dean.

Let's be realistic here. No matter what Bush's poll numbers are like right now, he is incredibly strong going into 2004. Reagan and Clinton both had much lower poll numbers at this point in their terms. Clinton was written off as a one term president through most of his term until the very end when the economy turned up and the GOP nominated a weak and uninspiring candidate. Right now the GOP is at its strongest and the Democratic Party at its weakest since the McKinley era and Bush will have more money than any candidate in history, by a long shot. If employment takes a big jump (he almost certainly won't erase all the job losses, but a few quarters of stunning growth in the GDP and job market will make that point moot) and Iraq and Afghanistan are going swimingly by the time November 2, 2004 rolls around, no Democrat can beat him probably. If, on the other hand, we continue on our current course (as I suspect we will) a candidate that can run the right kind of campaign with the right kind of message can have a real shot against him.

That kind of campaign will not be a Carter/Mondale/Dukakis/Clinton/Gore, traditional, top down, ad heavy, style over substance type of campaign- Bush plays that game much better. He has all the advantages in that kind of battle- he has 100% name ID, the world's biggest bully pulpit, more money than God and a unified, incredibly well-organized party behind him. Thats why we must be guerilla warriors- striking the mighty where they are weak and feeding off of and fanning popular discontent. We must develop a sort of political Judo- using our opponent's strength against him. Howard Dean is the man for the job.

Dean has nearly 450,000 online supporters- nearly half a million people have read what he has to say, gone to his website and filled out a form saying that they want to be connected with his cause. That is more than the number of voters in the New Hampshire primaries and Iowa caucuses combined. Of that 450,000 nearly 120,000 are actively involved in the Meet Up process- meaning that more people say that they are going to go to an organized meeting of Dean volunteers every month than there are participants in the Iowa caucuses. If only a third show up that is still 40,000 active, organized, committed supporters nationwide a year before the elction. This is at a time when 2/3 of all Democrats can't even name one candidate and he already has nearly 500 times as many active supporters as the margin in Florida in 2000. Finally, Dean has raised $12.6 million this quarter from 150,000 donors. Dean has convinced 150,000 people to put their hard earned money towards getting him elected president. That is unprecedented in modern history and is the kind of fundraising operation that is going to beat Bush's pioneers and rangers and his $200 million. Where Bush is mass produced, Dean is grass roots, where Bush is top heavy Dean is populist, where Bush is funded and fueled by powerful interests Dean is supported by average Americans willing to work, organize, donate and support him through thick and thin. That is a powerful advantage over Bush that not another Democrat has anything resembling.

Additionally, Dean has the Judo needed to knock Bush out. Bush has a slick, carefully orchestrated image- Dean is real, unprocessed. Bush has sound-bite policy proposals, Dean has meat and potatoes, something substantive to say. Bush smirks while 3 million people lose their jobs and 6000 families are devasted by having a family member killed or injured in Iraq and Dean is mad as hell. Bush is conservative where he shouldn't be- on issues of fairness and equality- Dean is liberal on those issues. Bush is a bleeding heart where he ought not be- on fiscal issues- Dean has balanced more government budgets than anyone else in this race. Bush is viewed as a slightly dumb cowboy, Dean is a doctor- an expert who knows how to fix things most Americans don't. Dean can take Bush on where he is weak and take advantage of him like no other candidate can.

Finally, Dean will win the Democratic nomination. Really, there are only four candidates with any chance at the nomination- Dean, Kerry, Gephardt and Clark. The three irrelevants are, well, irrelevant; Graham can't raise money and his numbers are dismal, his organization next to non-existant; Edwards is mired in obscurity in the polls and his campaign seems to be populated by people intent on losing and Lieberman brags about getting booed at all the forums- he is a step to the right of the party. Dean will take out Kerry in New Hampshire unless something important happens soon for John and Gephardt is increasingly weak in Iowa. If he loses there, he is done. Other than that, his trendlines are down nationally and Clark and Dean's are up. I believe that the race boils down to Clark v. Dean and Dean has more money, better organization and taps into the visceral anger of rank and file Dems right now. Clark can gain ground before the nomination is locked up but I doubt that he can surpass Dean. Clark is the only other candidate with a shot as far as I'm concerned and I think his vacillation hurts him badly. Dean is what Democrats want- an electable, angry, exciting liberal with a great organization and a commitment to what he says. Dean wins the nomination unless Clark gets some solid ideas and some fire in his belly, Kerry does something new in New Hampshire or Gephardt has a radical change in fortunes. I see Dean winning this race and choosing a moderate southerner with foreign policy credentials, i.e. Wesley Clark, as his running mate. His organization, message, image and the intensity of his supporters leads him to victory. No one else can do it.

Paul Wellstone wrote a book called The Conscience of a Liberal shortly before he passed away in which he described the future of America as he saw it. It was an America where the government becomes a force for change, fairness, prosperity and hope for our people. It was an America where people with the intensity, intelligence, compassion and passion of Paul Wellstone were in charge. He talks about how this country will not be created by sound-bite politicians with $2,000 a plate dinners and wishy-washy positions on everything, but by a mass movement of grassroot progressive activism. Howard Dean adopted his signature tagline "I'm from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" from Sen. Wellstone and it seems he's adopted his vision and organization from the late professor as well. I believe in that kind of America and no other person running now, or ever in the last 35 years has fought for that like Howard Dean has. The less we worry about electability and the more we worry about who has the best plan for making America the country we all know deep down inside that it can be the clearer it becomes- Howard Dean is the man for America.

Corn!

By Jim Dallas

Here's a picture from my trip this weekend to Iowa as part of Dean's Texas Rangers (BOR | DFA | Statesman). It was taken Sunday morning outside of Adel, in Dallas County.

I spent Saturday in Council Bluffs, which is across the river from Omaha, Nebraska; and yesterday in Dallas County. a rural county about 30 miles west of Des Moines.

More details and pictures tomorrow - I'm tired!

My Concerns About Dean

By Byron LaMasters

I did surprise a couple of people with this post where I wrote that while I am still "leaning Dean, [...] my support is much softer than before". I got a few emails over it. Basically, this story from the Washington Post basically echos my feelings about Dean:

Peter Lehmen and his wife, Theresa, of Keene, N.H., attended Clark's town hall meeting late Friday. Lehmen has given money to Dean and credits the scrappy Vermonter with having the courage to take on Bush and start a dialogue among the Democrats that has shaped both the tone and the substance of the debate. "He was talking about things that other people were afraid to talk about," Lehmen said.

Lately, however, both Lehmens have begun to question whether Dean is the best Democrat to beat Bush. Peter said he finds Dean inconsistent in some of his views. Theresa said Dean is "coming across as a little more abrasive" and appears to let his ego get in his way. Clark, she said, impressed her as someone who could successfully negotiate with foreign leaders. "He certainly presented himself in a very diplomatic but forceful way that I would call presidential," she said.

I hate Bush. I HATE him. I hate everything about him. There's lots of people that I can disagree with, but respect. I highly respect a lot of Republicans like John McCain, Bill Ratliff, Ron Paul, Colin Powell and Carole Keyton Strayhorn. I even respect conservatives like Tom McClintock and some others (there's a good number of them out there) because they're honest about what they believe in, and they don't play games. Bush isn't one of them. Why do we hate Bush? This piece summarizes a lot of the reasons. That Bush hatred is what led us to Howard Dean. When everyone else was being a wimp, Howard Dean was firing back. Now that Bush is less popular, Howard Dean has emerged as the frontrunner because he was critical of Bush when it wasn't popular. But I do think that there are serious issues about Dean's ego, about his abrasiveness, about his issue positions, about his ideas for Iraq that his harecore supporters would like to ignore (or just pretend that it's DLC propaganda). Can Dean win the nomination? Yes. Can he be elected President? Yes. But he still has a lot of maturing as a candidate to do (although you could say the same about any of the other candidates, especially Wesley Clark). Back to Bush. I don't just want to beat him, I want to beat him bad. I don't want it to be close enough for their to be any doubt. And I want to bring a Democratic Congress in with our Democratic president. I'll support the candidate in which I think could best do that. If after a few months, it become clear that Wesley Clark is in the best position to bring us that victory, then I'll endorse him. If Howard Dean remains that candidate, then I'll stick with him. We'll see.

Strayhorn Says Redistricting is Wrong Priority

By Byron LaMasters

The two major clashes in Texas politics this year have collided. Clash number one is redistricting. Clash number two is the internal GOP bickering between Carole Keyton Strayhorn and Governor Perry and the legislature. Now, they've hit head on:

In an escalating feud with fellow Republicans, Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn chided Gov. Rick Perry and GOP leaders for pursuing back-to-back sessions on redistricting instead of school finance.

"The Legislature is spending their time climbing up hills when we have a mountain looming out there," said Mrs. Strayhorn in an interview to be televised Sunday. "And the mountain looming out there is school finance reform."

Mr. Perry, who has summoned lawmakers into three special sessions to redraw the state's 32 congressional boundaries, on Friday dismissed Mrs. Strayhorn's remarks.

"Everyone has their opinion," he said. "I disagree with it."

Mrs. Strayhorn has been critical of legislative spending and is seen by some analysts as a potential rival to Mr. Perry or Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst in the next statewide election.

In an interview for the news program Project Texas with Wayne Slater, to be aired Sunday on Texas Cable News (TXCN, Channel 38), Mrs. Strayhorn said she enjoys being comptroller, the state's chief fiscal officer. But she wouldn't rule out the possibility of challenging either of the state's top Republican leaders.

"To all those people across the state who ask me to serve, I never say never," she said.

A popular candidate who has billed herself "one tough grandma," Mrs. Strayhorn was the top vote-getter in last year's elections.
Mr. Perry on Friday stepped up his political squabble with Mrs. Strayhorn, saying he supports an effort to strip her office of two high-profile programs.

The Senate voted Thursday to transfer the comptroller's performance review and school district audit programs to the Legislative Budget Board. Backers say it will help streamline state government. Mrs. Strayhorn has said lawmakers were taking the action to punish her for speaking out.

As for redistricting, Mrs. Strayhorn said in the interview that GOP leaders have been so focused on finding a way to get more Republican seats in Congress that they have neglected the state's beleaguered system for funding public schools.

"The most important issue that this state needs to address right now is school finance," she said.

"The state has got to pick up more of the share. Homeowners have to have property tax relief, and we've got to have equity" of funding among school districts, she said. "That's a huge challenge. That's what in a real bipartisan way we've got to address and address now."

Mr. Perry said that if state leaders can reach a consensus on a new funding scheme for schools, he intends to call the Legislature back into special session early next year. Only the governor can set the agenda for special sessions.

The state's system of funding schools is under court challenge. Property-wealthy districts want to eliminate the "Robin Hood" formula that redistributes money to property-poor districts. At the same time, property-poor districts say the state needs to put more money into the system.

Texas schools are funded through a combination of property taxes, state tax dollars and some federal funds.

Some lawmakers say the extended fight over redistricting, during which House and Senate Democrats fled the state to delay adoption of a new map, has produced highly charged partisanship in the Legislature that could damage agreement on issues such as school finance.

"We definitely need to have a bipartisan arrangement," Mrs. Strayhorn said. "We need to all roll up our sleeves together and get to work on the big issue, and that's school finance."

New Blogs, More on YCT Bake Sale

By Byron LaMasters

I just added Barefoot and Naked to my Texas Lefty blogroll. Check it out for some interesting reads from France's Most Dangerous American Playing Cards to Republicans and English Fluency to Dallas County Politics.

I've also found myself reading the Bedlar Blog for my occasional dosage of insightful conservative commentary (did I just say that?).

Both Bedlar and Barefoot (and Naked) posted on my YCT = Racists post. Barefoot, here, and Bedlar, here. The newly revamped Curmudgeonly Clerk also blogged on the topic, here and here.

Considering that there were 18 comments (so far...) to my post, I'll probably do a follow up this weekend.

Iowa Bound

By Byron LaMasters

Well, I'm not, but BOR poster Jim D. is. He's one of several hundred Texans who is going to Iowa or New Hampshire for the weekend to be a "Dean Texas Ranger". And no, being a "Dean Ranger" doesn't require bundling $200,000. All it requires is sacrificing a weekend to support the good doctor. I'm not able to make it for the weekend, because I'll be working tonight, and to be perfectly honest, I'm a little less enthusiastic about the Dean campaign than I was several months ago. I think that Dean had the right message for the Spring of 2003, but I'm not quite sure if it's the right message to win next November. Unfortunately, there's no candidate out there that just grabs me, though, and I'm not longing for Al Gore or Hillary Clinton to jump in the race either. Of the other candidates, the only other candidate that I'm really drawn to is Wesley Clark, but things like this and this obviously concern me. So, basically you can put me on the record as currently leaning Dean, but my support is much softer than before. I've officially resigned from various volunteer roles (Students for Dean, Longhorns for Dean, etc.) that I've held with the campaign, although the Dean campaign still lists me as the UT contact (even though I've emailed them and told them I am no longer the UT contact). I'm sure that it will be worked out eventually. Anyway, I look forward to hearing Jim's comments on the Iowa / New Hampshire trip. Whether you're a Dean supporter or not, you have to like the contrast Dean makes between his grassroots Rangers and Bush's Enron / Worldcom / Halliburton millionaire cash-bundling Rangers.

Update: Dean Texas Ranger Melissa Taylor will be blogging her trip to New Hampshire this weekend.

Update: A bunch of other friends of mine will be in Iowa this weekend. I'm sure that Karl will blog on the trip when he returns. You can help Karl raise money for Howard Dean, here.

More on Metrosexuality

By Byron LaMasters

Here's another test you can try. My first post on the topic is here. Or you can just read Maureen Dowd's parody on Arnold the Metrosexual.

State Fair Starts Today

By Byron LaMasters

The State Fair of Texas starts today in Dallas, home of the Red River Shootout on October 11th.

Brazoria County Democrats Blog

By Byron LaMasters

Via Off the Kuff, the Brazoria County Democratic Party has joined the blogosphere. Kudos to them.

For All the Info On the State Chair Race

By Byron LaMasters

Check out the teX files.

Austin City Council Opposes Patriot Act

By Byron LaMasters

In a resolution passed by the Austin City Council yesterday, the council noted its objection to the Patriot Act and Patriot Act II, although it did say that it would cooperate with the provisions of the act. The Austin American Statesman reports:

The Austin City Council officially put in writing its criticism of the USA Patriot Act on Thursday, joining the more than 170 cities and counties nationwide that have passed similar resolutions.

Council Members Jackie Goodman, Daryl Slusher, Danny Thomas and Raul Alvarez voted for the resolution, which also opposed the passing of the USA Patriot Act II. Mayor Will Wynn and Council Members Brewster McCracken and Betty Dunkerley abstained.

Austin's resolution expresses concern that the Patriot Act, lauded by federal lawmakers as an essential tool in fighting terrorism, might have the potential of violating fundamental liberties.

The resolution -- sponsored by Goodman, Thomas and Alvarez -- stopped short of directing police not to cooperate with federal authorities. And as Slusher requested, it does not declare any parts of the act unconstitutional.

The act was approved by Congress shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. It gives the government surveillance powers that critics say could lead to the infringement of citizens' civil rights.

It changes federal officials' methods for obtaining records, search warrants and wiretaps if the investigation involves international espionage or terrorism. Agents still must convince a judge that any action is necessary.

The University Democrats endorsed this proposal at our first meeting of the semester. I supported the resolution, although in all honesty, it accomplishes little. I supported Will Wynn and Brewster McCraken in their campaigns, and I understand and respect their decision to abstain on this issue as (I think) they believe that it's not the job of a city government to pass resolutions on issues in which they have no authority.

Responding to Comments on my TDP Chair Post

By Andrew Dobbs

The post is here you can read the comments there as well.

First off, I'd like to thank everyone who responded for your comments.

Secondly, I'd like to address some of the concerns that were brought up an answer some of the questions. I do this in an entirely new post rather than in the comments section because it is all the way down the page and people might not be reading it any more, but it deserves some responses from your's truly.

To begin with Charles' question as to my thoughts on Carol Alvarado, I think that she sounds like a great progressive leader in Houston and was chosen as the City Council member of the Year by the Houston Press Readers Poll last year. She has worked for Lee Brown, which gives me pause, but she has been a great community leader and is the kind of leadership we need. She has been an at-large member of the DNC, worked as a liason with the Harris County AFL-CIO, sits on the Planned Parenthood PAC board for Houston and Southeast Texas and has worked to register more Latinos to vote. I was not really familiar with her (I grew up in Dallas and live in Austin now) until this post and she sounds like a pretty good candidate and I'd group her with Coleman, Boyles and Watson. I'd like to see her stay involved in Houston politics, perhaps challenging Ron Wilson for the state House if she is in his district or Whitmire if she is in his for State Senate.

There was a lot of talk about how shameful I am for saying that the GOP is racist, with Karl-T getting my back and Mark Harden attacking me. All I know is that the GOP has opposed Affirmative Action, the only program that has ever been successful in increasing diversity in our higher education system, which essentially means that the GOP opposes helping African Americans and Hispanics because it might hurt white people. I know that they speak with racist code words such as "states' rights" in their platform. I know that they have people like State Rep. Wayne Christian (R-Nacogdoches) who says that the problem with the budget writing process in Texas is that it is "controlled by the Blacks and Hispanics;" and Texas Supreme Court Justice Steven Wayne Smith who said that Hispanics weren't smart enough for Texas colleges. The Texas Democratic Party has a shameful history of racism in its past but we have become the party of opportunity and acceptance for racial and ethnic minorities and the GOP has filled the old role of racist demagoguery quite nicely. But I digress...

There was a post from "jack" who makes the point that we need "institutional knowledge" to help the party move on and should thus choose one of the old-timers for at least the interim chair because

First, we have to understand how this happned. Second, we have to start building a structure to communicate our message in areas we are failing. Third, we map out where we are going.

These are all good points and are very true. But someone who is an entrenched member of the old party structure is indicted by their position in the breakdown of our party, secondly they are responsible at least in part for our communication failures and finally they are stuck in a mindset that has looked only behind us for so long that we are in a quagmire where our party is quite possibly the weakest state Democratic organization in America. Ohio is the only one even close to as bad. We need to clean this organization out from top to bottom and a new leader must be chosen from outside the party structure. Finally, the time when Democrats were getting elected statewide is an incredibly different era- it wasn't long ego but the political structure has been turned upside down by clever Republicans defunding and locking out the Dems. Those who won in the old days don't know what it takes to win now. Watson, Boyles, Coleman or perhaps Alvarado is what it will take.

Finally, Greg Wythe makes the important note that picking only those issues that I mentioned- abortion, feminism, environmentalism, etc.- we would be a minority party forever and I agree. I don't mean someone who only represents those or even someone who puts those number one, but someone who is known for being on the correct side of those issues and not someone who will sell us out there. Someone who sides with polluters or against a woman's right to choose or against labor or against the rights of gays and lesbians has no place at the top of our party. None of the candidates I have mentioned would put these issues as their only concern- Watson has a phenomenal record on economic issues, Boyles is an advocate against violence towards women, Coleman is a leader on health care and Alvarado is an expert in urban development. But in addition every one of them supports the rights of gays, women, minorities, laborers and for protection of the environment. I'm not offended by Zell Miller's name and he makes a very good point- we must not be pegged as a special interest party, but these issues ARE special and must not be misrepresented by our new chair.

I hope that that covers everything and I hope that the discussion continues on this thread.

"Do Not Call Registry" Kills 2 Million Jobs

By Byron LaMasters

Do I like telemarketers? Nah, not really, but for millions of Americans, it's a job. And our economy under President Bush has lost more jobs than any under any administration since Herbert Hoover. The "Do Not Call Registry" could, in fact kill up to two million jobs, USA Today reports:

But the telemarketing industry says it also will wipe out as much as half of its $100 billion in annual sales, send ripples through the fragile U.S. economy and put 2 million of its 6.5 million employees out of work. Industry officials say many of those workers are tough to employ: About 5% are disabled, 26% are single mothers and 95% are not college graduates. Average hourly wage: $9.67.

So, it's really a shame, that neither Republicans nor Democrats will stand up for these people.

Am I saying that telemarketers aren't annoying? No, they are, but to me, I'm willing to spend 15 seconds several times a week telling telemarketers that I'm not interested if it means saving our troubled economy a few million jobs. If you aren't willing to do that, then there's plenty of things that you can do. The "Do Not Call Registry" isn't needed. Conservative blogger, Joe Kelley writes this:

Telemarketers rack up annual sales of $100 billion. Clearly someone is buying something from these people that call our house. If telemarketers were totally unpopular, they would vanish due to lack of sales. Instead, they’re thriving. Let’s face it, telemarketing calls are only annoying when they’re selling something you don’t want.

I’m also fearful of the Law of Unintended Consequences – if marketing companies cannot make money through phone sales, how long until they revert back to door-to-door salesmen? I find door-to-door salesmen much more annoying than phone salesmen. Will the FTC stop them, too?

I’m really embarrassed as an American that we feel the need to have the government do something to stop annoyances, particularly when we have the ability to stop them ourselves.

We can:

Hang up the phone when called

Use caller ID and not answer the phone from unknown callers

Screen calls with an answering machine

Use new technology like the Telezapper

Utilize features from most phone companies that can block all unknown callers

We are smart enough as individuals to defeat the telemarketers in our houses and we don’t need Uncle Sam to fight this fight.

Oh, I do support legislation to prevent telemarketers from calling cell phones because, unlike with a home phone, it’s not just annoying, it costs me. The government should protect us from financial losses from telemarketers, but really has no business protecting us from annoyances.

I agree 100%.

Things that make you go "hrrrrm."

By Jim Dallas

As noted by Atrios, Arnold Schwarzenegger had this to say last night in the California recall debate:

We should model ourselves after Texas.

Well, yes, they should. The sooner those crazy left coast hippies get with the program, the better.

But in fairness, here is the rest of Arnie's speech:

In Texas, they have committed $140 billion for infrastructure (unintelligible) with building 4,000 miles of transportation -- railways, freeways, highways and all those kind of things. They have already taken the position where we were first in export -- now it's Texas, the first in export. Because they are really aggressive. That's what California ought to do.

Oh brother.

If I gave a tinker's damn about the outcome of the recall election in California, I might make an effort to remind Arnold that the Texas Mobility Fund, which allowed borrowing for road construction, wasn't even created until the end of 2001, and I'm not sure where he's getting the $140 billion dollar figure (because the Perry transportation plan - which the Austin Chronicle calls "anachronistic" - is going to cost a whole lot more than that). But in any case whatever money is out there has barely registered.

That Texas is now the leading exporter is nothing to crow about; the difference is largely a function of our economy being hurt somewhat less by the recession than California's (our economy didn't grow, it just didn't shrink).

In 2000, California exported $120 billion in goods, and in 2002 that fell to $92 billion. By contrast, Texas exported $104 billion in 2000, and $96 billion in 2002. (Stats from the Dept. of Commerce)

In other words, Arnold just doesn't know what he's talking about.

Perry's Map: "An Abomination on its face"

By Byron LaMasters

That's what today's Amarillo Globe-News editorial says:

West Texas had been losing its political clout in little bites over many years. That is, until Gov. Rick Perry unveiled a congressional redistricting map that demonstrates a sudden, and none too welcome, shift in the region's political fortunes. West Texas seems to be losing power in one giant swallow.

Perry's map splits the Panhandle in two. The 13th Congressional District, now represented by Mac Thornberry, R-Clarendon, would cover the eastern half, with the 19th District, now represented by Randy Neugebauer, R-Lubbock, comprising the western portion.

The map is an abomination on its face.

Here is the map that Rick Perry proposed earlier this week:

Sources: Greg's Opinion and The Lasso.

Greg also has a good post comparing congressional returns in given precincts / counties for Charlie Stenholm and other Texas Democratic Congressmen in GOP districts as compared to Perry and Bush's performances in the same precinct / county. Take a look, here.

College Republicans T-Shirts

By Byron LaMasters

Via John Kerry's website, College Republicans sold t-shirts at their convention that blamed terrorism on Islam, blamed Bill Clinton for 9-11, and featured two other shirts with anti-gay and anti-African American themes. Here's the image:

Other images here and here.

Update: More on the Kerry Blog, here.

Precinct 1 Commissioner Race Heats Up

By Byron LaMasters

The Daily Texan reports on the Precint 1 County Commissioner race between Celia Israel and Ron Davis. The University of Texas is located in Precinct 1 (as is my apartment).

I blogged on this race a few weeks ago.

Racists at UT

By Byron LaMasters

Well, the racist SMU YTC fundraiser isn't the only racist event on campus in this state. At UT fliers were distributed today by a White supremist group.

On a similar note, the UT YCT chapter handed out fliers today calling Umer Zaman is a terrorist. Zaman is not a known terrorist. He is a Pakistani student suspected of transcript fraud. He's wanted for questioning by police, but has not been charged with any crime. I would agree with the Daily Texan that this is an example of "heinous example of racial profiling at its worst". This is how racist / xenophobic people and organizations think. He's an Arab. His transcript was a fraud, so Ah-hah! He must be a terrorist! Lock him up! Umer Zaman may very well be a terrorist, but there's no evidence of it, and YCT is simply spewing racist and xenophobic hysteria by its actions. Here's the full editorial:

We strongly urge the Young Conservatives of Texas to cease posting or handing out "wanted" posters with Umer Zaman's picture, and condemn any future attempts to do so.

Creating such posters unfairly and irresponsibly suggests Zaman is wanted by a law enforcement organization.

No information suggests Umer Zaman is a terrorist. Zaman was never connected to a terrorist organization or accused of aiding any sort of terrorist plot.

Zaman is an international student from Pakistan who disappeared after UT officials confronted him with charges of transcript fraud. Linking Zaman to terrorism represents an overt attempt to villainize him for his background.

The distribution of flyers only creates an atmosphere of fear and paranoia. Casting Zaman as some sort of dangerous figure is a heinous example of racial profiling at its worst.

While federal officials admitted to the Texan they were interested in the Zaman's case, that interest does not mean officials want Zaman in custody.

The production of "wanted" posters sets a dangerous precedent for students who believe they possess the right to vilify and demonize those not yet convicted of a crime. And the implications of that abuse of power don't stop at just one nationality or ethnic group.

A student organization attempting to take the law into its own hands harms both those innocent until proven guilty and the student body as a whole. With the Campus Fusion event just on the horizon, student groups should be looking to extend and diversify their goals and membership rosters, rather than seeking to alienate others.

If the Young Conservatives of Texas believe in condemning those who possess similar traits to known terrorists, the University will become an unwelcome place for students of all backgrounds, nationalities or religions.

Once again, we strongly suggest that the YCT not continue to create and distribute "wanted" posters.

Arnold Wants to Flush Arianna in a Toilet

By Byron LaMasters

Yeah, seriously:

"I have been in hundreds of debates and I have never been treated like I was by Arnold Schwarzenegger tonight," Huffington said.

[...]

When Schwarzenegger attempted to interrupt Huffington early on and eventually just spoke over her, she said: "This is the way you treat women, we know that."

It was one of the sharpest lines of the evening, because of allegations that Schwarzenegger's past statements and behavior reveal a sexist attitude.

Given a chance to respond, the action star said: "I would just like to say that I just realized I have a perfect part for you in Terminator 4."

Huffington said after the debate she took that to mean Schwarzenegger was comparing her to a female character in the last Terminator movie whose head he dunked in a toilet.

"The point I'm making is when I'm speaking and he refuses to give way and he makes a Terminator 4 reference about sticking a woman's head in the toilet, that is what I am talking about," Huffington said.

Young Conservatives of Texas (YCT) = Racists

By Byron LaMasters

I'm sorry, but this just isn't funny. It's racist. There are ways to make political points. I'm all for a open and honest debate on affirmative action. I support affirmative action, but I can understand and respect a conservative arguement against it. But I'm sorry, I won't accept a blatantly racist ploy like this. The Dallas Morning News reports:

The sign said white males had to pay $1 for a cookie. White women: 75 cents. Hispanics: 50 cents. Blacks: a quarter.

The event Tuesday at Southern Methodist University was no PTA bake sale.

It was a conservative student group's attempt at making a political statement, and it caused such a stir that SMU shut it down after 45 minutes.

The Young Conservatives of Texas chapter ran its so-called affirmative action bake sale to protest the use of race or gender as a factor in college admissions. Conservative groups have held similar sales at colleges around the country since February.

The bake sale didn't raise much money, in case anyone cared:

For the record, the SMU sale was a flop, at least financially. The group ended up selling just three cookies, raising $1.50.

Excuse me while I laugh in their face.

Racists.

The California Debate, abridged

By Andrew Dobbs

Moderator: Good evening, this will be a night of chaos and confusion. We gave these people the questions a week ago but now we are going to dispense with rules and have a meandering shouting match. Let's begin.

Arnold: *interrupting someone, probably Arianna Huffington* All you want to do is tax tax tax! Businesses have abandoned California, blah blah blah *insert modestly clever catch phrase*

Tom McClintock: *crosseyed* Let's eliminate all taxes except for the most regressive, let's cut all state spending other than enforcing immigration laws. I'm probably the smartest guy on this stage, but unfortunately I don't like minorities, women, immigrants or schools.

Peter Camejo: Hello, I'm going to sloganeer and spout off class warfare rhetoric and pretend I have a chance of winning.

Arianna: Democrats are evil, Republicans are evil, Bush Bush Bush, War in Iraq, John Ashcroft, Enron... wait, I'm running for Governor? *insert personal attack*

Cruz Bustamante: *in a late night R&B DJ kind of baritone* We need tough love for California, I have done everything good in this state for a few years, blah blah blah *subtext*= I'm profiting from a craven attack on my own party...

Moderator: Here we have 5 largely unqualified self-promoters who have the maturity and self-discipline of 3 year olds. An action movie star and misogynist, a cross-eyed Ronald Reagan minus the charisma, two left wing spoilers and a guy who looks like a carnival barker. Good night everybody, we're doomed.

FOX News Says Bustamante Won

By Byron LaMasters

Damn. That darn liberal media is trying to tear down Republicans again:

Democratic Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante pleasantly surprised some Republicans, and conservative Sen. Tom McClintock and Green Party candidate Peter Camejo showed their true colors. But the constant shouting between Schwarzenegger and independent Arianna Huffington was a unfortunate distraction.

Schwarzenegger also gave himself no help in his search for the women's vote with the exchange where Arianna Huffington said that "We know how you treat women", where Arnold responded that he "just realized that I have a perfect part for you in Terminator 4". Sure, I thought that it was funny, and I knew that Arnold was joking, but still, it's not going to help Arnold with winning women's votes. I was expecting him to say something about his wife and family, but no.

More State Chair News

By Byron LaMasters

I wrote yesterday that David Van Os and Gary Mauro are running for state chair. So is Garnet Coleman and some people are trying to draft Jim Mattox. Now, Charles Soechting, former Hays County Chair is running, and there's still talk that Sherry Boyles might run. I'm quite surprised at the size of the field already. I expect it to shrink pretty soon.

Map Passes Senate, Republicans Fighting

By Byron LaMasters

The Texas Senate passed a new congressional map tonight by a vote of 18-13. The House and Senate Republicans still remain deadlocked over the west Texas question. Rick Perry said today that if the situation isn't resolved this session, he'll.... call another session. The Houston Chronicle reports:

Here is the map passed by the House.

Here is the map passed by the Senate.

As the Senate tentatively approved a Republican congressional redistricting plan after almost eight hours of debate Tuesday, Gov. Rick Perry raised the specter of a fourth special session if the bill fails because of GOP infighting over West Texas.

The legislation passed on a mostly partisan 18-13 vote. The only Republican to vote against the map was Sen. Teel Bivins, of Amarillo, who favors creation of a new congressional district around Midland. The Senate map does not create such a district.

Democratic senators entered the debate admitting Republicans have the votes to pass legislation redrawing the state's congressional district boundaries. They spent the debate building a future federal court challenge to the legislation, accusing the Republicans of a partisan power grab that will harm rural and minority voters.

"The Republicans want to cancel our vote just because they didn't like who was elected," said Sen. Eddie Lucio, D-Brownsville, noting five congressional districts vote Republican in statewide elections but choose Democrats for the U.S. House.

"Changing the maps by merging rural Texas counties and districts dominated by straight-ticket Republican suburban voters literally steals the votes of the independent and minority voters who chose those five congressmen," Lucio said.

But Sen. Todd Staples, R-Palestine, sponsor of the Republican plan, said his proposal preserves existing minority districts that are protected under the federal Voting Rights Act.

Staples said there are no proposed changes in seven predominantly Hispanic districts and one black district that already have been upheld as legal by the U.S. Supreme Court. He said it made minor changes in the predominantly black district of U.S. Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Dallas, and two minority-influenced districts held by Democratic U.S. Reps. Martin Frost of Dallas and Chris Bell of Houston.

I wonder if FOX News will sue Todd Staples now:

"I present this map to you today as a fair and balanced map," Staples said.

Staples' map would all but guarantee the Republicans three additional seats after next year's elections and would enhance the ability of GOP candidates to capture three others. A map approved last week by the state House would give the Republicans a 21-11 majority after next year's elections.

The article then goes on to explain further details of the Republican divide, including some more on Rick Perry's non-compromise "compromise:

The major roadblock to passage of a bill now is a dispute between West Texas senators and House Speaker Tom Craddick, R-Midland, over how their part of the state should be drawn. Craddick wants a congressional district for his hometown of Midland, but drawing that district could have a negative impact on congressional districts now built around Lubbock, Abilene and Amarillo.

Perry on Monday offered a proposed compromise that aligned him with Craddick in the debate. Tuesday, the governor said he would call a fourth special session if the Republicans failed to reach an agreement.

"The issue of drawing the maps, the specificity of drawing the lines, is the Legislature's responsibility," Perry said. "If we can help work through any hurdles that are out there, we're happy to do it."

In the Senate, the Democrats tried several times Tuesday to derail the debate by using Senate rules, but Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst turned them down.

In one attempt to use the rules to delay debate until today, Sen. Royce West, D-Dallas, challenged Dewhurst's ruling, forcing a rare vote on the presiding officer's authority. Republicans voted to back up Dewhurst while Democrats voted to overturn his ruling.

"Are we being governed by the rules of engagement, or are we making it up as we go along?" West asked.

Dewhurst of course had time to leave his duties as presiding officer of the senate to raise money, as the rest of the debate turned to Democrats building their case for a court challenge to the eventual map:

After that, Dewhurst turned the Senate gavel over to a variety of senators so he could fly to Nacogdoches for a Farm Bureau speech and a fund-raiser.

Because federal court challenges on redistricting revolve around minority voting protections under the Voting Rights Act, much of the Senate debate focused on that issue.

Sen. Gonzalo Barrientos, D-Austin, rejected the notion that Democrats are playing "the race card." He said it is Republicans who are playing racial politics.

"Some would say they want the only remaining Democrats to be black or brown," Barrientos said.

He had hinted that he would filibuster the bill but did not.

The Democrats built a case that in seven districts, minority voters provided the margin of victory for Democratic candidates. They said those districts should be protected under a new Supreme Court ruling in Georgia v. Ashcroft.

One of those districts -- District 9 -- is held by U.S. Rep. Nick Lampson, D-Beaumont. West and Sen. Mario Gallegos, D-Houston, said the 234,582 black and Hispanic residents in Jefferson County and Galveston have provided Lampson his margin of victory in past elections. But in Staples' map those minority residents would be split into two new Republican districts.

"Minority voters in that district are replaced by predominantly white voters from Clear Lake to make that district more conservative," West said.

Gallegos said the plan diluted minority voting strength. Staples said if that is true, it will be turned down when reviewed under the Voting Rights Act by the U.S. Department of Justice.

The Fort Worth Star Telegram confirms Rick Perry's intention to call a fourth special session on redistricting if Republicans can't get their act together:

Gov. Rick Perry promised Tuesday to call lawmakers back to Austin for a fourth special legislative session if his own political party fails to reach agreement on congressional redistricting.

Meanwhile, a former SREC (Senate Republican Executive Committee member has called on Texas GOP chair Susan Weddington to resign:

A longtime Republican financial contributor, recently forced out of a party leadership post in a controversy over confidential phone calls, Tuesday called on Texas GOP Chairwoman Susan Weddington to resign.

Thomas Whaley, a businessman from Marshall who stepped down from the State Republican Executive Committee under pressure from Weddington, said the chairwoman's leadership was "hurting" the state party.

"I believe it is time for her to resign or be replaced," he said.

What Our Next Chair Should Look Like...

By Andrew Dobbs

So I didn't get in on the blog burst action, simply because I was very busy and I felt that most of what should be said has already been said by others in a much better way. I still would like to weigh in on the issue of who our state party chair ought to be so I decided to post on what the qualifications should be and who might fit those standards. I think that this new leader will be very integral in the direction our party takes over the next several years and in 2004 in particular as they will be chair at least until June of next year.

First and most importantly the person who is chosen must be a new face to the party, someone who is either young or at least not someone who's been around forever but someone who is willing to push the party in a new, positive direction. Frankly, I'd say that this qualification alone dropkicks Jim Mattox (who is way too conservative for my tastes anyways), Carl Parker and Garry Mauro right outta there. David Van Os is pushing it. He's 53 and has been active since the 70s, and is pretty establishment-ish, but he seems to have the kind of vitality that these two don't, but I think others would be better. Kirk Watson has got to be in his 40s but he looks a lot younger and acts even younger than that. Sherry Boyles is only 31 and rocks my world and Garnet Coleman is young and tells Patrick Rose to "stop kissing Craddick's motherfucking ass" in public. That's what I call fresh!

Secondly, I think that we need someone progressive with a history of activity in the progressive movements (civil rights, abortion rights, feminism, gay rights, labor, environmentalism, etc.) because it was the lazy, corrupt, reactionary and short-sighted reputation of the overgrown Texas Democratic Party that gave the GOP an opening here and throughout the South. In 1961 when John Tower was elected to the US Senate as the first Republican elected statewide here since Reconstruction he won because all the liberals voted for him over the reactionary put up by the Dems. That's only one example but it highlights the kind of breaking point that a lot of moderate and liberal people faced where they either switched to the GOP or stopped voting in the first place. I think that this means goodbye to Jim Mattox and Carl Parker, both too conservative for this important position. Hello Watson, Boyles, Van Os and Coleman.

Thirdly, we really ought to recognize the achievements of underrepresented classes of people, our party's base, with the chairpersonship. That really leaves Boyles (a woman) and Coleman (an African American) to vie for the spot. Either would be phenomenal and I'll leave it at that.

Finally, we need someone who has won races, or at least come close, and can raise money and organize. Watson probably takes the cake on this one, though Coleman runs a political consulting firm and is the only one of those three currently holding office (though Watson was the popular mayor of Austin for several years). Boyles, god bless her, has never been elected to anything and did about the same as everyone else in 2002 in her race for Railroad Commissioner- 41.5%. Albeit the incumbent is kinda popular (Michael Williams, a black Republican gets paraded by the GOP as their idea of "diversity.") and it was a down ballot race in a year when Democrats were not held in terribly high regard, she still got thumped. Watson did about as well. Watson can raise money though, and he has been elected mayor of a major city. Still, I think that the statewide exposure this position will bring is the kind of push that would really set Sherry Boyles up for good things in the future.

So there we have it- Watson, Coleman and Boyles. They each have at least one thing really going for them- Watson has money and organizing skills, Coleman has progressive cred out the wazoo and Boyles is young and energetic. Any of them would be great and any of the others (with the possible exception of David Van Os, though his record is a little shaky) are pretty bad. Call your SDEC members soon so we can get this party rolling!

David Van Os, Gary Mauro Running for State Party Chair

By Byron LaMasters

David Van Os briefly challenged Molly Beth Malcolm as chair in 2002, but withdrew before the convention. Van Os is running again now, with the position open. As a labor laywer, Van Os obviously has a following among labor. Personally, he, along with Dallas Precinct Chair Tom Blackwell were very helpful in last year's Platform Committee meeting at the Texas Democratic Convention in getting my student regent plank into the state party platform, "Texas Democrats... support efforts to place a voting student regent on the appointed Board of Regents of each state-supported four-year institution of higher education." Personally, I'm more inclined to support someone for Party Chair that I see representing the future of the party (Kirk Watson, Sherry Boyles, Garnet Coleman, etc.), but folks like Jim Mattox, Gary Mauro and David Van Os have certainly paid their dues and bring a lot of experience to the table.

David Van Os for State Party Chair website

Draft Jim Mattox for State Party Chair website

Gary Mauro has announced that he is running for state party chair, as is Garnet Coleman.

I have not yet endorsed a candidate for this race. I may do so... I may not. Not that I have a vote in the matter, other than calling / emailing my SDEC members. Still, I think I'll wait to see what happens (who else jumps in, who jumps out - since the field is already crowded) before I start seriously looking at the choices.

Are you a Metrosexual?

By Byron LaMasters

Find out, here.

Text of Democratic Radio Address by Leticia Van de Putte

By Byron LaMasters

State Sen. Leticia Van de Putte (D-San Antonio) gave the weekly Democratic radio address to the nation on Saturday. Here is the text of her remarks, via the Texas Democratic Party website. The speech focused on the "three R's". "The three R's: recount, recall, and re-redistricting - are the new playbook for a narrow Republican majority attempting to use government to expand partisan power". I like it, but I do worry if the message gets out to independents. The Daily Texan said no. Anyway, here's the full text of Sen. Van de Putte's speech:

Democratic Radio Address to the Nation Texas Senator Leticia Van de Putte 20 September 2003

Good morning. I'm Leticia Van de Putte, a Texas State Senator from San Antonio, and Chair of the Senate Democratic Caucus.

When George W. Bush was our Governor, we worked across party lines to address the challenges facing the people of Texas.

Today, the United States faces many challenges:
I. an education system that leaves millions of children behind;
II. a health care system that leaves million of families uninsured or without care;
III. an economy that has left millions of Americans without a job.

But instead of working to solve these problems, Republicans in Washington have chosen to use the tools of government against the people instead of governing for the people.

The three R's: recount, recall, and re-redistricting - are the new playbook for a narrow Republican majority attempting to use government to expand partisan power.

In Texas, they want to use redistricting to cancel the votes of millions of rural, independent and minority voters - and to dictate who their congressman should be.

We already have a legal, new redistricting plan that was approved by the U.S. Supreme Court. But Tom Delay didn't like who the voters elected, because a map that favored Republicans didn't elect enough Republicans to suit him.

Redistricting in Texas is still being forced upon us by pressure from the President's chief strategist, Karl Rove. Because contrary to claims he is a "different kind of Republican," our President Bush is using the power of the White House to help Tom Delay steal six congressional seats from Texas voters.

This is not just politics as usual. This is bigger than Texas. It's part of a national pattern that threatens to make a mockery of our precious democracy - where the powerful change the rules when the people get in their way.

Giving Republicans a new congressional map could cost Texas taxpayers up to $20 million - and deny the voting rights of more than one million Hispanics and African Americans.

At public hearings, thousands of Texans - Republicans, Democrats, and independents alike - said "NO" to redistricting. Every major Texas newspaper, civil rights groups, and local community leaders oppose it.

This summer, when we had the votes in the Texas Senate to stop redistricting, the Republican leadership changed the Senate rules. Then they levied fines against us, putting a price on democracy.

When Democrats blocked redistricting in the Texas House this spring, Tom DeLay and other Republicans tried to get the FAA, the FBI, and even a Homeland Security agency - to round up Democrats who stood up for the people. And Texas Governor Rick Perry even ordered Texas Rangers to go to a hospital neonatal unit where the wife of a Texas House member had prematurely given birth to twins.

As elected officials, our ultimate duty is to govern - of, by and for the people. Instead, Republican leaders treat government as another arm of the Republican Party, and that, my friends, is a dangerous violation of the public trust.

Speaking on behalf of the millions of rural, Hispanic and African American Texans we represent, we have urged President Bush to stop this attack on minority and independent voters.

The President cannot claim he wants to win our hearts, while the White House signals it's OK to steal our votes.

Harry Truman said "the buck stops here." So far, the President has passed the buck.

Mr. President, you can end this with one phone call to Governor Perry.

You can call Karl Rove into your office and tell him to end the worst attack on minority voters since the passage of the Voting Rights Act.

You can tell Tom DeLay that Republicans will not relegate Hispanics and African Americans to second-class citizenship.

Mr. President, if you fail to act, your silence will tell Americans you condone and support those who would use government to take power away from the people

This is Texas Senator Leticia Van de Putte. Thank you for listening, and may God Bless all Americans.

Garnet Coleman Running for Interim State Chair

By Byron LaMasters

Via the Quorum Report, here is the letter sent by Garnet Coleman to members of the SDEC (Senate Democratic Executice Committee). Unless a consensus candidate emerges, Garnet Coleman is in a great position to serve as interim chair. As a leader of the Killer D's, and as someone respected by most everyone in the party, he'd be able to help us prepare for the elections next year. Here's a picture of my friend David and I with Garnet Coleman in Ardmore, Oklahoma in May:

September 19, 2003

Dear Fellow Democrat:

I am writing you today about the future of our Democratic party. With the retirement of Molly Beth Malcolm as party chair, we face a major crossroads for the Texas Democratic Party. Our next chair will play the major role in beating back the Republican advances. This choice requires the utmost care and deliberation. For that reason, I ask for your support as interim state party chair until a permanent choice can be fully measured.

We know that elections count. We are now feeling the unprecedented Republican budget cuts in which children and the elderly lost health care and workers lost jobs. The last legislative session also saw a far-reaching lawsuit measure that destroys Texans’ access to the courts and radical anti-choice legislation passed into law. At this very moment, the Republicans have come back for more and will seemingly stop at nothing in an unprecedented and illegitimate re-redistricting scheme. The stakes could not be any higher.

The next chair must be a strong voice and active worker for our party. An effective chair must be capable of standing up to the Republicans, raising money and organizing grassroots efforts. The chair must possess good managerial skills and be able to drop everything in their life and head to Austin full time. This is no easy task.

If no consensus can be found on a new permanent chair by the October 25th SDEC meeting, and I was elected interim chair, I would work to maintain and further develop the infrastructure of the state party. My role as legislator and chair of the Texas Black Caucus and the Legislative Study Group (the progressive caucus) has allowed me to exercise the leadership necessary to act as an interim caretaker. As an organizer of the House Democrats’ quorum-breaking trip to Ardmore, I know what it takes to rally support for a difficult cause. I am very dedicated to the Democratic Party and am committed to keeping it strong now and in the future. If elected interim chair, my goal would be build the strength of the party until a permanent chair is elected-either by the SDEC or by the party delegates at next year’s convention.

Thank you for all that you have done and will continue to do for our Democratic cause. I urge you to consider this letter and exercise due diligence in electing the next chair of the Texas Democratic Party. Please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss the matter further..

Sincerely,

Garnet Coleman

Perry's Non-compromise "Compromise"

By Byron LaMasters

Can someone explain to me how this is a compromise? Or can someone explain to me how Rick Perry's brain works? First off, he has a meeting to discuss the west Texas district controversy. Yet, he only has a map with the seven west Texas districts (with nothing regarding the other 25 - how can you have a compromise on a map when you only draw 22% of it?). Second, the "compromise" was not a compromise. It still created a Midland based district, and presumably paired Randy Neugebauer and Charlie Stenholm, which Sen. Robert Duncan (R-Lubbock) opposes. The Austin American Statesman reports:

Gov. Rick Perry weighed in on the congressional redistricting fight Monday, proposing a map that would solve a fight between Republicans in West Texas but leaving about two-thirds of the state in question.

The map, unveiled by Rep. Phil King, R-Weatherford, would create a district that could be won by someone from Midland. It also creates a separate district for Lubbock.

Speaker Tom Craddick, R-Midland, has been fighting for a Midland-based district, but Sen. Robert Duncan, R-Lubbock, opposes that idea.

King, the House's lead negotiator on congressional redistricting, said he and Craddick could accept the map if the Senate signs off on it.

It's not clear, however, that that will happen. No one from the Senate nor the governor's office attended a news conference where the plan was unveiled. The Senate is scheduled to debate its vastly different plan on