Burnt Orange Report

Happy New Year

By Byron LaMasters

I'm about to go out and celebrate new year's here in Los Angeles with one of my good friends from UT that moved out here after he graduated last spring. I'm excited, and happy about the new year. Best wishes for everyone in 2004!

Howard Dean is Who?

By Byron LaMasters

Who is Howard Dean? He's been compared to Bill Clinton, John McCain, Jimmy Carter, George McGovern, Bill Bradley, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Ronald Reagan, Ross Perot, Harry Truman, Josiah Bartlett, Barry Goldwater, Steve Forbes, Jerry Brown, William Jennings Bryan and George W. Bush.

Thought you heard them all? In a column yesterday in the Dallas Morning News, William McKenzie makes the case for John Anderson:

Mr. Dean is galvanizing young people. They are dropping everything and setting out to his headquarters. Deaniacs are bonded together by their passion for doing what they think is right. The Bushites shouldn't scoff at that. Idealism will make Dean supporters fight until the last.

Mr. Anderson had a similar effect on young people in 1980. They saw the centrist as the alternative to Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. Doonesbury loved pricking our idealism, depicting rookie aides as running the Anderson campaign asunder. Still, there was a band-of-brothers feel, much like the Dean campaign possesses.

Mr. Dean is filled with righteous anger. The man is convinced, I mean convinced, that Mr. Bush is part of the axis of evil. There is nothing like a little moral clarity to get your juices going – and to keep those checks coming in.

Mr. Anderson's angry-man performance in Iowa's January 1980 debate turned our headquarters topsy-turvy. Phone calls came in like machine-gun fire after he soared in that debate. So did the money, as he became the Republican who didn't want the GOP to head into kookdom.

Mr. Dean is popular among suburban professionals in the Northern half of the country. When the Vermont doctor rolls up those sleeves and starts going after the right wing, he is talking the language of suburban boomers from Westchester County to Seattle.

Mr. Anderson also found a ready audience there. Suburban professionals around Boston, San Francisco and Chicago loved him.

Mr. Dean is seen as a liberal star, although his gubernatorial credentials are fairly centrist.

Mr. Anderson also became the darling of liberals, when he actually had a moderate voting record. He represented blue-collar Rockford, Ill., for 20 years, for heaven's sake.

Interesting points, interesting comparisons, but I think that it just proves the bigger point that you can basically compare Howard Dean to anyone. Ultimately, Roger Simin has it right on target. The candidate that Howard Dean most resembles is Howard Dean. For better or for worse...

Van Os Running for Appeals Seat

By Jim Dallas

Noted from OfftheKuff...

The short story: Decent lawyer. Ran for State Supreme Court in 1998. Didn't do too bad (he outpolled Garry Mauro by 230,000 votes...). Not neccesarily the most favorite person among many Democrats, but that's all inside baseball (and let's try not to be "Loop 360 Heathers"). Grass-rootsy, for better or worse.

If nobody else runs and the Van Os folks get their sh-tuff together, I'll probably work pretty hard for him, considering the opposition, Scott Brister, Texas's own "Ten Commandments Nut."

UPDATE 1: It's Supreme Court, not Court of Criminal Appeals. Thanks to WhoMe?

UPDATE 2: Ouch! I'm not sure what substance this has, but it will probably get dragged up sooner or later.

Ron Wilson Must Go

By Jim Dallas

Thanks to Carl Whitmarsh for forwarding the news.

Alma Allen filed papers yesterday to challenge state Rep. Ron Wilson (?-Houston) in the Democratic Primary. Allen, a member of the State Board of Education since 1993, is eminently qualified (almost over-qualified) for this seat. Moreover, she's been (at least as I understand it; I'm not a veteran SBOE watcher) a consistent liberal voice on the board.

In 1998, Allen lost a primary challenge against Wilson by about 1,000 votes -- although given that Wilson is now anathema in the Democratic Party, I think this surely will be a competitive race. Though neither Allen nor Wilson has had anything but token opposition in the last two general elections, Allen won nearly 10 times as many votes as Wilson did in the last general election (167,000 to 18,572), and almost 100 times the number of votes that Wilson won his last primary by (he eeked out a 2000 vote margin, more or less, in 2002). Clearly, the woman knows how to line up support.

At any rate, the Houston Press printed a story this week which reads like a litany of Wilson's sins. Whether you like his politics or not (everyone's entitled to their opinions), his personal attacks against Rodney Ellis and Garnet Coleman are over the line, and he ought to be punished for that -- not as a Democrat or a liberal or an African-American (or whatever), but as a matter of basic human decency:

After a turn on the witness stand two weeks ago in the Democratic lawsuit challenging the plan, Wilson attacked colleague Garnet Coleman for his history of manic depression. Many considered it a low blow, but that was just one more unstatesmanlike wisecrack in an ongoing torrent of invective by the Houston legislator.

What hasn't surfaced publicly is an incendiary deposition in which Wilson opens up on a handful of elected Democrats, using language that makes his comments about Coleman seem tame by comparison.

Wilson took a shot at state Senator Rodney Ellis of Houston, testifying that "he's got his head up his ass half the time." Just to help the court reporter, Wilson spelled it out: "A-S-S. Ass."

Ellis "is taking a position that black people don't deserve another seat in Congress," Wilson explained later to The Insider. To describe minority officials who fought the redistricting plan, Wilson used some rather charged racial imagery:

"That's the effect of all this dancing around, shuffling and jiving, and the tap dancing. They are saying to the public, black people do not deserve another seat in Congress, even though the population is there to justify it."

Wilson was asked during his December 1 deposition whether he was supporting the plan because he intends to run for the redrawn Ninth Congressional District against 25th District incumbent Chris Bell. Wilson claimed that Coleman was spreading that rumor, sounding "like some old, whiney, 3-year old girl." A bit later, Wilson opined that "I don't consider [Coleman] an African American."

After the deposition, he contended that Coleman "has placed the interest of party politics and his own economic welfare above the interests of African-Americans, the community I represent. He's seen fit to sing the piper's tune and to be Chris Bell's boy by betraying black people."

If the plan stands, Bell would have to run for election in the redrawn Ninth District, which is dominated by African-Americans. Although Wilson denied he plans to run against Bell, he said any qualified black would win. "I think he gets his butt kicked," opined Wilson, who later said he'd bet his house that Bell will lose.

Wilson also accused Coleman of being indebted to white Democrats because he receives large cash payments through his media buying firm, Coleman Strategies.

He "takes it in and doesn't have to report to anybody how he spends it. He literally makes his living being a leech off of campaigns."

Coleman responds that most of his company's campaign work has been pro bono -- unpaid -- and he has made little from Coleman Strategies. He points out that Wilson's position, as the only one of 16 African-Americans in the legislature to vote for redistricting, speaks for itself.

"I don't know that anyone understands Ron but Ron, but it's clear that he's gone over the top in his comments, and that is unfortunate. He's really gone over the top in the policy positions he's taken vis-à-vis his constituents." As examples, Coleman cites Wilson's votes against hate-crime legislation and for a budget that eliminated health care dollars for low-income children.

Congressman Bell previously criticized Wilson for improper conversations with U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a key backer of the redistricting effort.

"Bell cannot tell me who I can and cannot talk to," Wilson told The Insider. "As a member of Congress, he talked to Tom DeLay a number of times and that's okay. That's why I say he's a racist bastard. That's the arrogant attitude he has, and why he shouldn't be in Congress."

I'm sorry, Rep. Wilson, but when you go accusing Chris Bell of being a racist (said the kettle to the pot) despite saying that Garnet Coleman "isn't an African-American" because he's interested in preserving substantive representation, well, I will not abide.

Kos on front page of USA Today

By Jim Dallas

Although still upstaged by the ever-foxy Jennifer Connelly, Markos (as well as Houston-based GOPUSA.com and the blogosphere, generally) is now front-page news.

In other news, the Longhorns lost another bowl game they should of won. Congratulations to Washington State.

Now, just as soon as the 2003 Holiday Bowl is properly consigned to the memory hole, we can go through another roller-coaster season of Almost-But-Not-Quite-Winning-The-National-Championship with Mack Brown and the boys.

Ashcroft Tries to Dodge the Bullet

By Andrew Dobbs

From the AP:

Attorney General John Ashcroft removed himself Tuesday from the investigation into whether the Bush administration leaked a CIA operative's name to a newspaper columnist, and a career federal prosecutor from Chicago was named as special counsel to take over.

In a move cheered by Democrats, Deputy Attorney General James Comey announced that Ashcroft had stepped aside to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest after reviewing evidence recently developed in the inquiry. He would not specify the nature of that evidence.

Comey said U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald in Chicago, a veteran of terrorism and political corruption cases, would take over as a special prosecutor and would be given "the tools to conduct a completely independent investigation."

Note the interesting grammar here, maybe I'm reading too much into this but perhaps I'm not:

Comey announced that Ashcroft had stepped aside to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest after reviewing evidence recently developed in the inquiry.

Other stories have noted that Ashcroft kept very close tabs on the investigation, being briefed on every new news that came up. Now, after reviewing all of this, after hearing all of this confidential information he's doing a complete 180 on the administration's policy and passing the buck to someone else. If he had done this from the beginning we'd just say that he was being cautious, being honest. Now, after the investigation has been on going, it seems as though he's trying to get out of the way of an oncoming freight train.

Whoever it is that betrayed the secrecy of a CIA agent's identity- whether its the Democrats' dream of Karl Rove or some low level person without any political weight attached to him/her it is important that they go to jail for a long long time. Putting the lives of Americans and American allies at risk for political gain is shameful and ought to be punished. The thing that chaps my ass is how nonchalant Bush seems to be treating this. This ought to be project number one- get the traitor- but it isn't for some reason. Still, looks like someone else, Jim Comley to be exact, will see it in that light.

To recap- "senior level Bush Administration official" puts the lives of unknown numbers of Americans and American allies at risk so that he can one-up an enemy of administration and no one seems to know who it is and Bush seems to not care too much. He hands the job off to Johnny Ashcroft down at the DOJ who keeps a close eye on things. Democrats ask for someone not directly associated with the administration to take over but the Administration gives em the finger. Finally, Ashcroft looks at everything for a while and lickity split he calls up someone else and gets the hell out of dodge, thereby contradicting what everyone's been saying all along. Now why would anyone suspect something fishy about that?

Elections Back Home

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Though the actual story is a few days old, I would like to pass along this short report in the SA Express News about events here in my home county of Gillespie here in Central Texas. Had we not gotten the said donation, one of the next steps would have been to take use of some election code that would have forced the local Republican Party to share election funds with us as they get about $10,000 I think.

Demo voters in Gillespie get help By Zeke MacCormack

A $2,000 donation should allow Gillespie County Democrats to comply with state election laws for the first time in seven years and spare party members the traditional commute to Fredericksburg to vote in the March primary. The county's minority party last used multiple polling sites in 1996, local officials said. Since then Democratic primary voting has occurred only at St. Joseph's Hall in Fredericksburg.

The Texas Election Code authorizes consolidation of primary polling places down to a minimum of one site in each county commissioner precinct, Jennifer Waisath of the Secretary of State's Office said Tuesday.

George Keller, the Democrat's county chairman since 2001, said he plans to re-establish polling sites in each of the four commissioners' precincts for the March 9 primary.

"We'll announce the locations in two or three weeks," said Keller, who expects the new location to improve voter turnout.

Fewer than 400 Democrats voted in the 2002 primary, he said, but the general election drew 2,000 votes by the party. "So it's pretty clear there are voters out there," he said.

Reduced state funding left Keller with just $1,200 to conduct his party's primary until last week, when state leaders, faced with frustrated party officials across Texas, announced that funding would be restored to prior levels with a $2.5 million allocation.

"That would take me back to $1,450, but I needed $3,400 more" to establish three new polling sites, Keller said.

He had planned to ask Gillespie County commissioners last Monday to allocate the funds, but a donor who wished to remain anonymous stepped forward on Friday with $2,000. An appreciative Keller plans to hold fund-raisers to make up the balance.

Tommie Skipper, a former Gillespie County Democratic chairman, said sufficient funding is only half the battle.

"It's hard to even get anybody to work at the polls," said Skipper, 72, of the hourly jobs with wages of $7 for trained staffers and $5.15 for first-time workers.

The Republican Party chair in Gillespie County could not be reached for comment.

Out of the 15 federal voting precincts we have, four will be filled with Precinct Chiars this next cycle, me being one of them. On top of that, 3 of them are for sure Dean supporters, and the fourth I believe is. I think that we will for once have an increased turnout, and our caucus attendance I think will be many times larger. In 2000 there was about 10 people total I believe. That's for all 15 precincts conventions combined. And to think that we can send 52 people to our County Convention!

The Western White House`

By Byron LaMasters

The same folks that run White House.org, have started Western White House.org. Here's what they have to say:

The Western White House is the private ranch home of President and Mrs. George W. Bush. Located in the remote, charming hamlet of Crawford, Texas, the Western White House is a modest and photogenic reflection of the Bush family's folksy, down-home authenticity. Completed in 1999, the Western White House was designed by President Bush himself, and is notable for its patriotic and evocative melding of architectural highlights from Baptist prayer halls, medium security penitentiaries, and antebellum tobacco plantations.

Also check out the floorplans of the Western White House.

Evil Media Clowns

By Jim Dallas

You know it's an election year when you start to see shoddy smear-jobs against candidates.

The absolute worst so far this season has been John Solomon's AP story which magically transforms Howard Dean into a "hypocrite" using old quotes taken out of context, bad analogies, and the selective use of facts.

John Solomon's AP story is a travesty. If it ran in your newspaper today, I strongly urge you as an American to write a letter to the editor and tell the whole story.

The lead paragraph pretty much sets the tone --

Democratic presidential hopeful Howard Dean, who has criticized the Bush administration for refusing to release the deliberations of its energy policy task force, as governor of Vermont convened a similar panel that met in secret and angered state lawmakers.

Much is made in the story about how "similar" the two task forces were. Solomon makes a point of beating the idea into the readers' head in the 9th-to-last paragraph, in which he writes "The parallels between the Cheney and Dean task forces are many."

And while the story does make a cursory run through the facts, which in totality show that the "parallels" are few, the empasis remains on the claim that the task forces are somehow equal.

True, both task forces held secret sessions and talked about energy, but that's about as far as the comparison goes.

Moreover, many of the facts of the story are buried so far down that most small papers, like the Galveston County Daily News, cut them out entirely. Here is the letter to the editor that I just wrote about this --

Your snippet on Howard Dean (Monday, A4) is lamentable. The AP story from which it was cut is a biased piece of "gotcha" journalism, using a lot of old quotes, flimsy analogies, and over-reaching generalizations to imply hypocrisy on Gov. Dean's part, when none exists.

Howard Dean’s energy task force in Vermont was not comparable to Dick Cheney’s energy task force in Washington.

First, the Vermont task force held a public hearing (Cheney did not). Second, the Vermont task force had balanced input from a number of citizens' groups, not just "liberal" ones like the AP story implies.

Third, the Vermont group listed the participants publicly in their final report. To this day, Vice President Cheney formally refuses to even say who he talked to, and is fighting in the Supreme Court to prevent the people from finding out. The Daily News left this out.

There is no comparison.

That pretty much sums it up, although I'm leaving out another detail (but, heck, so did John Solomon).

The reason why Democrats want to get their hands on the Cheney task forces' deliberations is a little complicated. Under one interpretation of Federal Advisory Committee Act, secret task forces aren't supposed to exist on the federal level at all. The Vermont task force, was, of course, governed by Vermont's open-meeting law, so there's your number one difference.

The thing about FACA, though, is that it only bans secret meetings if non-government personnel are involved.

Although the White House claims the only participants were government officials (and hence, not covered by FACA but by other, more generous acts), there has always been a pretty deep suspicion that energy industry lobbyists were participating within the definition of FACA. If they did, then the Vice President may very well have broken the law.

The only way to know whether the energy task force was operating within the law is to look through the deliberations.

That is why Cheney is stone-walling the Sierra Club, Justice Watch, and others. It's not political, it's legal. Much as Richard Nixon sought to block access to the Watergate tapes to prevent people from finding out what he knew about CREEP's illegal activities, Cheney may very well be blocking this to save his own hide.

What happened in Washington may have been a crime, and essentially the White House is trying to obstruct justice, in the broadest, non-legal sense of the term.

Now, my understanding is that the secret meetings of the Vermont task force were fully within the laws of the state of Vermont. While it would be nice if the task force unveiled their records (as a matter of public curiousity), there aren't any legal ramifications.

At any rate, John Solomon's AP story about Howard Dean leaves all of this out, instead blurring the story as if it were solely about "secrecy." Secrecy has a place in government -- if it's within the law and handled professionally, as Howard Dean's task force handled it.

My gut feeling is that this story probably came out of a "blast fax" from either the Republicans or a Democratic rival. Too many of the points made in the story seem like they were dug out of Lexis-Nexis by an over-eager oppo researcher.

Again, please write your newspaper editor and kill this story. Do not let ignorance and Below-The-Beltway sophistry taint a good man!

Down and Out in the Spider-Hole

By Jim Dallas

Reports in the foreign press that claimed that Saddam Hussein's capture had been, in effect, staged, got people thinking harder about that strange coincidencewhereby President Bush signed the FY2004 Intelligence Authorization Act on the same day that Saddam Hussein was captured.

(Via Kos poster Xavier Sigala and the San Antonio Current)

n December 13, when U.S. forces captured Saddam Hussein, President George W. Bush not only celebrated with his national security team, but also pulled out his pen and signed into law a bill that grants the FBI sweeping new powers. A White House spokesperson explained the curious timing of the signing - on a Saturday - as "the President signs bills seven days a week." But the last time Bush signed a bill into law on a Saturday happened more than a year ago - on a spending bill that the President needed to sign, to prevent shuttng down the federal government the following Monday.

By signing the bill on the day of Hussein's capture, Bush effectively consigned a dramatic expansion of the USA Patriot Act to a mere footnote. Consequently, while most Americans watched as Hussein was probed for head lice, few were aware that the FBI had just obtained the power to probe their financial records, even if the feds don't suspect their involvement in crime or terrorism.

By signing the bill on the day of Hussein's capture, Bush effectively consigned a dramatic expansion of the USA Patriot Act to a mere footnote.

The Bush Administration and its Congressional allies tucked away these new executive powers in the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, a legislative behemoth that funds all the intelligence activities of the federal government. The Act included a simple, yet insidious, redefinition of "financial institution," which previously referred to banks, but now includes stockbrokers, car dealerships, casinos, credit card companies, insurance agencies, jewelers, airlines, the U.S. Post Office, and any other business "whose cash transactions have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax, or regulatory matters."

Congressional leaders had already come under fire for the shenanigans that got the clause inserted into the funding bill.

There's reasons to question the Kurd claims that Saddam Hussein was tucked away for the Coalition in his spider-hole. Still, if we put on our tin-foil hats, it gets pretty easy to suspect that maybe, just maybe, this was more than a coincidence.

Did the White House know about Saddam, and time his perp walk to provide political cover? Most likely not. We don't know, and without any other knowledge, it's best to resist the temptation to speculate, particularly in the times we live in.

But in this era of uncertainty, it's also worth noting that there are people in the world for whom such conspiracy theorizing emboldens, and no, I'm not just talking about us crazy left-wingers at Burnt Orange Report.

For example, consider the chatter on the ground reported by Stars and Stripes --

Though most Iraqis seem to have accepted the fact Saddam was nabbed on Dec. 13, bizarre rumors on his real fate and whereabouts still circulate. Most of the theories suggest the military nabbed a double, not Saddam. The credulous majority, however, seem to view the rumors as a psychic hangover from years of brainwashing.

The sheer span of time — more than three decades — that the strongman ruled Iraq and the hard rivets he used to keep it that way made the man a myth. Children even sang songs about Saddam the very day he was caught, not so much out of respect, according to one Iraqi, but out of routine.

Though he’s heard the rumors, Abbass believes Saddam is in custody. Many Iraqis who believe the official U.S. account said the way the grizzled man on the television moves and gestures proves he is the ex-president.

“Because he ruled for 35 years, he is like a legend,” Abbass says. “They don’t want to believe he’s been caught.”

The shop’s owner, Ali Abbass, said about half of Iraqis still mourn the fall of Saddam. When news broke that Saddam had been captured, celebratory gunfire rattled throughout Baghdad. Ali says yet more lead was spent after some Sunnis and Baathists heard rumors that Saddam had been sighted, still free, in Fallujah...

(continued)

... American military and coalition officials say they don’t proactively attempt to dispel rumors, even when they’re in print.

“We try to make ourselves as open as possible, and almost every day we have a press conference,” said Lt. Col. Kevin Gainer, spokesman for military forces here. “The press is welcome to ask us questions. … They ask us a lot of times, ‘Is this true?’ And we haven’t even heard of it.”

And Iraq’s free press has only been that way for a short time and is still getting the hang of it. Responding to a press conference question on rumors in general, coalition spokesman Charles Heatly said authorities plan no crackdowns on the tales, tall or otherwise.

“We will deal with these rumors in a free media environment,” Heatly said.

Hopefully, there will be a commitment to transparency and honest government in Iraq, because ultimately it will cultivate trust.

But let's zoom back to Washington, for a comparison.

President Bush has become infamous for not holding press conferences; although I hesitate to quote from the far-righters over at lewrockwell.com, it's apt --

Our current president, George W. Bush, avoids formal press conferences like Ellen DeGeneres avoids men, and it’s no wonder why. Without the guiding hand of the teleprompter to feed his speechwriters’ words into his mouth, he’s as lost as Rush Limbaugh at a NOW convention. And so, understandably perhaps, Bush stages a press conference about as often as the Chicago Cubs win the World Series.

President Bush, is (or at least, ought to be) infamous for not producing information. be Stonewalling on Vice President Cheney's Energy Task Force. Stonewalling on the 9/11 Commission. Yellowcake and the never-ending game of "Who Endangered CIA Asset Valerie Plame?"

Need I go on?

The result has been a vicious circle, whereby Bush has, generally through his own incompetence and the incompetence of those around him, failed to cultivate the trust or respect of many Americans, mostly Democrats. We don't have to like what he's doing; but the fact of the matter is that we could still like him -- and we don't, in large part because he's not doing much to win us over besides smirking, telling awkward jokes, and pretending to be a rancher.

The vicious circle continues as such. We don't trust him. We get shrill. They accuse us of aiding and abetting the enemy, or whatever (contrast that again to Baghdad, where shrillness is tolerated in a "free media environment").

And just to think, maybe, just maybe, that wouldn't happen if the President would just start acting like the "uniter" he promised to be.

George W. Bush has been President now for nearly three years, and I think the fact of the matter is that he has generally failed in restoring honor and integrity to the White House. Our country is worse off today because of that.

Anti-Choice Scare Tactics

By Byron LaMasters

The Austin American Statesman did a long story today on the scare tactics employed by anti-choice activists. It's pretty outrageous what people like Chris Danze do to try to harass women and women's health care providers.

Danze now spends Saturday mornings outside Whole Woman's Health, a new abortion clinic in North Austin owned and operated by Amy Hagstrom Miller, who worked for 15 years at abortion clinics in Austin, New York and Minneapolis.

[...]

He said he sent Hagstrom Miller's landlord a letter in late August, offering the landlord the assistance of Danze's brother, a real estate attorney in Dallas, who could help the landlord "get Amy out of your building," according to the letter.

Danze sent a second letter three days later. It included photographs of aborted fetuses.

"Amy is killing children the same age and size as these photos, ON YOUR PROPERTY. While it is legal, it is terribly immoral. We are praying for you both and hope that your faith in Christ . . . will help you grow in courage and resolve to remove her and the evildoers from your property."

The landlord said he's received several letters about the clinic but declined to comment and requested that his name not be published.

Hagstrom Miller received an anonymous letter at her home in March, shortly after she opened the clinic, warning that if she did not close her business, a second mailing would be sent to 77 neighbors identifying her as a serial killer.

Shortly after, she said, several neighbors approached her with a letter that identified her as the owner of a "child killing operation in Austin. . . . currently involved in the serial killing of approximately 40 to 50 boys and girls a week." It included her home address, the clinic's address, and an 8- by 10-inch color photo of her. It was signed "A Concerned citizen."

Later, an e-mail sent to employees at the school district where she lives referred to Hagstrom Miller as a serial killer who had "ramped up" the killing operation. The e-mail closed: "Please pray for Ms. Miller, her staff of killers, the women who are scarred for life and the children who never had a chance."

Danze, when asked if he sent the letters, responded: "I'm not going to address that. They may or may not be my letters. And if I knew who wrote those letters, I wouldn't tell you." He also declined to comment on the e-mail.

He responded in a later e-mail to the Austin American-States- man: "Just as the Department of Public Safety informs communities the whereabouts of sexual predators, it is important for people to know the whereabouts of serial killers as well."

"They're harassing and intimidating in the name of Christianity," Hagstrom Miller said. "It's crazy that they're presenting the Christian perspective . . . I just don't know what we can do, and I'll be damned if I'll let him get me evicted."

The letters "did not include anything that we felt that were of an illegal nature," said Austin police spokesman Kevin Buchman. The letters and e-mail were sent from outside of Austin, but Austin police reviewed them because the clinics are located within the city. A letter would be considered illegal if it contained a threat of bodily injury or incited someone to cause bodily injury, Buchman said.

"I want her evicted, out of there," Danze said of Hagstrom Miller. "I want every abortion chamber in Austin shut down, but I'm not going to do anything illegal or unethical."

Outrageous. Just outrageous. It's not illegal, but its just one example of the tactics that the right-wing uses effectively to intimidate women and abortion providers.

Want to help? Support Planned Parenthood of the Texas Capitol Region Today.

Social Security- Private Accounts or No?

By Andrew Dobbs

Yesterday I posted about Bush's troubles going into the next legislative session and I said that I support a system of private accounts for Social Security pensioners. I suppose taking the position that the late liberal Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan took on the issue makes me a heretic, but let's look at the facts.

First, let's do away with the myths that this system would just hand everyone a bunch of cash to do whatever they want with it. The Cato Institute has an alternative program that would set up a system of private accounts. The reason I support such a program is that it would mean more money (the average annual return for the stock market over the last 200 years is 7%, Social Security only has a 1% return) for less in taxes- the Cato proposal would take 5% from workers and 5% from employers as opposed to 6.4% from each currently. Furthermore, this proposal would not mean that in the case of a market downtick that granny will be eating Alpo and living in a cardboard box- the federal government would still insure a minimum ammount of income- if one's investments would not allow for that ammount it would be subsidized by the feds. Finally, if for some reason you have a deep-seated fear of investment even when the government promises a minimum return you could choose to stay in the low-performing, no-risk system in place now. More benefits for fewer taxes and guaranteed return- who could oppose that?

The issue that gives many pause is the prospect of transition costs. See, most people envision Social Security as being an investment account right now- you pay your payroll taxes and it goes into some bank account somewhere to be withdrawn when you retire. That, of course, is not true. Your money goes to pay off the pensions of current Social Security drawers and your kids money will pay for your "investment." This is the reason the system is about to default- when more people are retired than there are working or when those numbers are roughly equal it will mean that the system will be bankrupt. Changing over to private accounts creates a long term solution but requires a short term investment to pay the benefits of current pensioners. Cato suggests keeping the withdrawl rate for employees and employers at 12.4% but using the extra 2.4% to finance part of this while using debt or other means (never taxes for Cato, of course) to finance the transition. In the long run of course, we will actually be saving billions with the new system so the point will be moot.

So why should a liberal Dem like myself or Moynihan support such a system?

First, it means that working people- the very people our party is supposed to be looking out for- will have more money when they retire and more money now.

Secondly, and most importantly for me, Social Security is currently a huge drain on our budget- accounting for more federal spending than all other programs put together. If we can reduce the ammount we spend there we can use that money for other programs or for debt reduction (which would create more money for more programs in the future). 7 programs account for more than 75% of all federal spending- Social Security, the military, Medicare, Medicaid, civil service pensions, military pensions and servicing the debt. If we can find ways to cut down on spending in these areas or eliminating them (the debt that is) we can spend more on universal health care, universal living wages, education, etc.

Thirdly, it will energize American business by significantly increasing investment. This will create new jobs and more opportunity for working people.

Fourthly, currently if you pay in thousands of dollars and then kick the bucket before getting them back your money just goes away. Under this, if you die your money goes to your heirs, which can help them finance their lives after the cheif wage-earner or pensioner is gone.

Finally, something must be done to fix Social Security or we will default on our promise to retiring Americans. Some have suggested raising taxes, but I think that we should avoid handing taxpayers the bill when we can- I don't like being labled "tax and spend" and I don't like losing elections which is what happens when we raise taxes. Let's give working people more money in their pockets and create more investment for America. Something must be done, something that doesn't just add more money but something that fundamentally changes our way of doing things so that the systemic problems of Social Security are cured while giving us greater opportunity for spending on social justice.

Margin of Duh

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Polls can be great. But somtimes the reporting of them can be incredibly stupid. Consider for instance this gem of a report.

The American public initially supports Medicare legislation providing help with prescription drugs, but that support fades when presented with criticism of the bill signed into law this year, a poll released Saturday suggests.

Asked whether they support "a Medicare bill which among other things provides prescription drug coverage and allows private companies to provide some services," almost two-thirds, 63 percent, said yes, according to the poll by the National Annenberg Election Survey.

When those polled were presented with opponents' arguments that the bill won't help seniors that much and cutting costs will eventually destroy Medicare, support faded. After hearings those arguments, only one in five of the total sample, 21 percent, supported it and another two in five said they were unsure.

Well duh. Though I hope that this isn't a word for word account of how the poll was conducted, the way it is being reported makes it sound that way. Well, gee, if I was asked how I felt about an expensive measure if it wouldn't help its targeted group that much or actually destroy a program, I wonder if my support might "fade" or become a little more "unsure".

Come on reporters, let's get with it. I was once one of you, and this should not become the standard.

During a campaign year, both sides are certain to vigorously debate the measure.

Yeah. Great Analysis. I'm tingling with suspense.

Dark Clouds Gathering for George Bush?

By Andrew Dobbs

Via the Wall Street Journal, it appears as though several problems are looming large for President Bush that could limit his chances of a 2004 victory. The issue seems to be a growing distrust among his own party in Washington.

First, is the Libya issue:

They are skeptical of lifting sanctions and rewarding Libyan leader Gadhafi, even if he does come clean on weapons of mass destruction, but figure they can't fight Rice. The national security adviser has made the Libyan initiative a top priority -- as vindication of the Bush doctrine of threatening pre-emptive force.

Many Pentagon and State officials were stunned by last Friday's news, talks were so closely held. More meetings with Libyans and the British are likely, as U.S. outlines demands for lifting sanctions -- not just intrusive inspections, but more intelligence on Libya's past terrorist ties. Families of victims of Flight 103, which Libya downed over Scotland in 1988, are outraged.

Widow Stephanie Bernstein calls U.S. "horribly inconsistent" in approach to Gadhafi vs. Hussein.

I have to say that I'm with the hardliners on this one. I was not one of those left-wing types that opposed all sanctions on Iraq. I thought that perhaps they could use some reform but the clear problem wasn't US-led sanctions but rather the greed and despotism of their leader. The same is true for Libya. Muammar Qaddafi is an evil, despotic, murderous dictator who is not to be trusted. No sanctions should be lifted until he is dead or steps down for a freely elected leader of his country- WMD or no.

It surprises me that Bush would consider doing such a thing, if only that the comparisons between Iraq and Libya will make it clear to the world and to American voters that Iraq had nothing to do with "liberation" as he now claims.

The second problem is his own party's push for him to come out for Social Security privatization.

THIRD RAIL: Vexed conservatives urge Bush to change Social Security.

Stewing over a new law they say does little to inject the private market into Medicare, activists at a Heritage Foundation meeting agree Bush could "redeem himself from the Medicare debacle" by a bold plan to create private retirement accounts from Social Security, says activist Stephen Moore.

Bush aides say he'll just talk up the idea in 2004 -- as in 2000 -- to seek a second-term mandate to act. Republicans in Congress fear political risk. Conservatives' favored model for change would entail big borrowing for trillion-dollar transition costs. Officials shun public use of "privatization" -- it polls badly -- but privately use it to describe Bush's goal.

Here's a surprise to many of you- I tend to support a form of Social Security reform that would allow people to invest part of their benefits into private accounts, much like Bush has proposed. I support it because it will lead to higher checks after retirement while costing less in taxes. The only issue is that, as the Journal notes, it would cost billions to transition to this program. Of course Bush won't use spending cuts or tax increases to fund this, but almost certainly just add it to the obese tab he's handing to our children in the form of belt-busting deficits. Which brings us to our final concern:

HIT THE CEILING: With Bush and Congress facing election-year embarrassment of having to raise the debt limit -- borrowing could breach the current $7.384 trillion ceiling this summer -- deficit hawks talk of using the vote to force passage of budget restraints. They're not optimistic. Republicans say past curbs reined in tax cuts, not spending.

This will be the third year in a row that Bush and the Congressional GOP have had to raise the debt ceiling so that they could spend without having any money. Doing this is a bit like credit card companies letting chronic defaulters who are saddled with unimaginable debt define their own credit. To paraphrase a particularly humorous analogy from conservative columnist P.J. O'Rourke, its like giving teenagers whiskey and car keys. There is a solid fiscal and philosophical argument for keeping the ceiling where it is now, but we ought to keep it for political reasons as well. Congressional Dems need to join up with budget hawk Republicans to force Bush to either significantly cut services or significantly raise taxes just as he's going into the 2004 elections. We can vote against whatever he proposes to fix it, as long as we've put him in a position where he has to do something. It's time to force this president to face his irresponsibility and to make it very clear to the American people that a credit card presidency cannot succeed.

In each of these cases conservatives in his own party are urging him to keep his word on three important issues- Libya, Social Security and the deficit. Perhaps Bush is hoping to alienate some of these people in his party that he might "triangulate" and win the election. Problem is, when Clinton triangulated he did things that were unpopular with liberals but popular with the public at large- welfare reform, etc. Nobody out there is really raring to buddy up to a guy who hanged student dissidents from street lamps, maintaining status quo on Social Security isn't really "triangulation" its just fiddling while a fiscal crisis with that program quickly builds steam and most people don't like weighing our economy down with government debt. Bush is in a losing position right now and we need to team up with the right flank of the GOP to ultimately weaken him for 2004.

Merry Christmas

By Byron LaMasters

Merry Christmas everyone from the Burnt Orange Report. I haven't been posting as much as I expected over break. I've been busy with some political work that I've been doing back here in Dallas, along with spending time with family and friends. Anyway, best wishes for a Happy Holidays for all our readers.

More Tests, More Knowledge

By Byron LaMasters

So what are you?

Here's my results:

Your political views are Liberal.
Your political party is most likely Democrat.

Fairly accurate. Then again, it called Owen a moderate, and if you've ever read his blog, he's anything but a moderate (most of us would classify it as "right-wing reactionary").

Donate / Volunteer for Paul Sadler

By Byron LaMasters

The special election to fill Bill Ratliff's state senate seat will be on Tuesday, January 20th. That's right, the election is less than one month away and Democrats in the district have united behind former state representative Paul Sadler. He's the only Democrat on the ballot.

Check out his webpage, here. Sadler is an expert on school finance and and public education reform. He also has a strong record of leadership as a state representative.

So how can we help?

1) Donate to his campaign. He accepts online contributions, so its easy. I'd say add $.01 for the Internet, but the form asks for whole dolor contributions only, so why don't we add $1 for the internet (i.e. donate $11, $21, $51, $101, etc.).

2) Volunteer. Call the campaign at: 903-938-7670 or email them at Info@SadlerforSenate.com.

There's an opportunity to help build signs this Saturday in Tyler:

Join Sadler Supporters in Northeast Texas and Help Build and Place Signs for Sadler for Senate District 1 for Senate District 1

10:00 AM
Saturday, December 27th
Steelworkers’ Union Hall
13624 State Hwy 31 West (Chandler Highway), Tyler

If you are interested in being part of the campaign team to win SD1 or are interested in finding out about transportation to Tyler, contact Tommy Smelser, 972-647-2828.

We have less than a month before election day, so lets get to work!

Update I just donated $21. Who wants to join with me in helping elect Paul Sadler?

Ralph Nader Not Running As a Green

By Byron LaMasters

Good News, and a special thanks to everyone who told Nader not to run. Without Nader, the Greens don't have a high profile, highly recognizable candidate, and they'll take less votes. Without the Green Party Nader will have more trouble attaining ballot access and money. It's a win-win situation for Democrats.

Christmas Music Causes Emotional Trauma

By Byron LaMasters

Well, not really, but thats what some workers in the Czech Republic are saying.

Labor unions in the Czech Republic demanded Monday that stores stop playing Christmas carols incessantly or pay compensation for causing emotional trauma to sales clerks.

Some stores here play the same songs all day -- and play them loudly. Employees say shifts have become unbearable.

"To listen to it for eight hours a day is not healthy, that's for sure," said Alexandr Leiner, a union leader. "And for the customers, it's almost unbearable as well."

Sure, it may sound frivolous, but if you've ever worked at a store that plays Christmas music the ENTIRE month of December, then you probably have similar thoughts. Nothing against Christmas music, but an entire month of it is tough to manage.

Paul Sadler for State Senate

By Byron LaMasters

Here's the Filings for the State Senate District 1 special election. Former State Rep. Paul Sadler is the only Democrat in the race.

Update: For more on Sadler and how to help his campaign, read this post.

Show Me the Money

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

First let me say that it is votes that win elections. This post is simply a statement that money helps the previous sentence to become a reality for candidates. Consider the following comments from today's Chicago Tribune...

When Al Gore endorsed Dean's candidacy, supporters contributed $695,658.75. After a group of fellow Democrats aired attack ads, donors defended him by pledging $552,214.62. Even on Halloween, Dean admirers gave $354,891.48.....

The loose change accounts for only a sliver of Dean's record-setting Internet fundraising, which in a recent 17-day period generated nearly $3 million...

Dean's money has allowed him to launch a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign in a half-dozen states and deploy workers to 18 more. Why devote such time and attention to a national effort while most candidates still are focused on January's contests in Iowa and New Hampshire? Because he can.

And then a few paragraphs down comes the following nugget (even after both Lieberman and Gephardt both reached half million dollar fundraising goals on their websites this past month).

Last week, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts lent $850,000 of his personal wealth to his campaign and prepared to take out a far larger loan against the value of his Boston home. Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut urged his staff to voluntarily delay one of their January paychecks for a month. And Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri asked his top aides to cut their salaries so he could keep running television ads.

And the sad thing? Sharpton who has about zero money and doesn't even campaign as hard as these guys is leading them in South Carolina and other state polls in the South. So once he beats them, will the media write them off. Either that or Sharpton could become the coveted "anti-Dean".

That was a joke.

The NASA Before Christmas

By Jim Dallas

This year I will ask Santa to stop NASA public affairs agents from waxing poetic about astronomical events:

The presents are opened, the stockings askew.
Two pounds of turkey are inside of you.

Your eyelids are drooping. The sun's going down.
Christmas is over. But wait... what's that sound?

The neighbors. They're shouting, "Look to the west!"
Outside you dash, along with the rest.

The sky is as pink as Santa Claus' nose.
And right in the middle--two UFOs!

Could it be an invasion? Some creatures from space?
Now you're awake. Your heart starts to race.

Run back to the house. Pick up the phone.
9-1-1, 9-1-1! "They're coming," you moan.

The voice on the line says, "Sir, just relax."
"There's nothing to fear. Let me give you the facts."

"Those spaceships you see aren't spaceships, no, no."
"Astronomers say it's a harmless light show."

"One's a planet called Venus, as bright as can be."
"The other's the moon. Now do you see?"

So go tell your neighbors: everything is alright."
"Merry Christmas to all. And to all a good night."

More on the Texas Ballot

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

I was going to post something about the Democratic Texas Ballot yesterday but I see that Byron was thinking some of the same things. So far, filing for a spot as a 2004 Presidential Candidate are four people.

Howard Dean, who was first to file for the spot.
Joe Lieberman, who apparently fairs well in the few Texas polls I have seen but I'm not sure he will even survive to our March 9 Primary.
Lyndon LaRouche, Jr., who I believe we have already covered.

and

Randy Crow, who likes to spell some words with s's in them with $'s instead.

Frankly, with half of the candidates filing so far being, um, not entirely normal, I would quite like to see some of the candidates filed for the DC Primary try to get on our ballot. I think Vermin Supreme would really shake up the race.

LaRouche on Texas Ballot

By Byron LaMasters

Geez:

Perennial presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche, an economist making his eighth consecutive bid for the White House, has filed for a place on the Texas Democratic primary ballot.

[...]

After LaRouche filed Thursday, Texas Democratic Party spokesman Sean Michael Byrne said his name will appear on the March 9 ballot, but the party contends LaRouche isn't qualified to be the nominee because he is not a registered voter.

Byrne said LaRouche also will be ineligible to win delegates at the national convention because he is not qualified under the party's rules.

When will LaRouche stop? I received a call from his scheduler last year when LaRouche was planning a speech at UT and I was president of the University Democrats. He asked if we would be willing to sponsor the event. I politely told him that I'd get in touch with my officer board and call him back. I never called him back. I've always felt like the best strategy in dealing with LaRouche is to ignore him. Let him on the ballot, sure, but other than that, just ignore him. He's harmless as long as we don't give him any attention (which I guess I'm doing here... oh well).

Kerry Throw's F-Bombs, Clark Says Shit

By Byron LaMasters

Well, John Kerry's using the F-word, and Wesley Clark said that he'll beat the shit out of anyone who questions his military record:

Moments after praising his opponents in the Democratic presidential race as worthy running mates, Wesley Clark said, in no uncertain terms, how he would respond if they or anyone else criticized his patriotism or military record.

"I'll beat the s--- out of them," Clark told a questioner as he walked through the crowd after a town hall meeting Saturday. "I hope that's not on television," he added.

It was, live, on C-SPAN.

Good for Clark. It's time that more Democrats get tough and don't take shit.

The Bush Tax

By Byron LaMasters

Yeah, President Bush has cut federal income taxes, but with the vast amount of those cuts going to the wealthiest Americans, the burden has fallen on everyone else. Sure, the middle and working class federal income tax brackets were cut, but the effect of that was the raising of local property taxes and other taxes to make up for the budget shortfalls across the country. The net effect is a new tax on working families.

Learn more at Bush Tax.com (it's run by the Dean campaign).

Ashcroft DOJ Preclears Map

By Byron LaMasters

Well, I'm disappointed, but not surprised by this decision:

The Justice Department approved a GOP-backed congressional redistricting map for Texas today, leaving only the federal courts as the last barrier to holding elections next year under a plan pushed by Republicans.

The Justice Department found that the plan complies with the federal Voting Rights Act, which was passed by Congress to guard against changes in state laws that might harm minority voting rights.

In a letter to Texas Secretary of State Geoffrey S. Connor, the Justice Department wrote that "the attorney general does not interpose any objection" to the new congressional district boundaries set by the Legislature in October.

The letter, written by Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sheldon T. Bradshaw, noted that even though the Justice Department found no reason to object, the redistricting plan still could be blocked by a federal court.

Obviously, I had hoped that the Justice Department would find that the map violated the Voting Rights Act, as I believe that it does, but John Ashcroft is the last person that would help Democrats in a redistricting fight.

Here's some reaction of Democrats via the Quorum Report:

Texas Democratic Party Chairman Charles Soechting:

"This highly partisan justice department puts political and partisan interests ahead of the interests of Texas voters. The political agenda at the DOJ obviously overruled the professional Voting Rights staff who would have thrown out this illegal redistricting power grab. It is no surprise that John Ashcroft's Department of Injustice has rubber stamped a map that cancels out the ballots of more than 3.6 million Texans after charging taxpayers $10 million for the privilege.

"The entire redistricting process has been corrupt from start to finish. Rick Perry's recent prediction that ‘a year from now, no one except political partisans are even going to remember redistricting’ may prove even more misguided than his failed leadership. More and more Texans are rebelling against the arrogance reflected in this legally flawed and morally unsound decision. Texas Democrats will never give up the fight to protect the rights of all Texas voters.

Martin Frost

"Until today, no Justice Department had ever approved a plan eliminating a majority-minority Congressional district. But the Bush Justice Department has made itself infamous by approving a plan to eliminate 2 majority-minority districts - disenfranchising over 400,000 Hispanics in the 23rd district and over 400,000 African Americans and Hispanics in the 24th district. Why? Because, as newspapers have documented, political operatives control the Bush Justice Department, and they chose to disenfranchise the minority voters the Justice Department is charged with protecting."

"In order to overlook clear retrogression in the 15th District, the Bush Justice Department also had to reverse itself on Hispanic voting strength in South Texas. That's because this new Congressional plan actually makes the 15th District less Hispanic than a nearby state House district rejected just two years ago by this same Justice Department.

Congressman Lloyd Doggett:

"I have never doubted that John Ashcroft would rubber-stamp Tom DeLay's political power-grab. That is why I am in South Texas for most of December, visiting old friends and meeting new ones. If the federal courts do not toss out this outrageous map, it is important that South Texans know that I can be as effective in representing them as I have been for my hometown."

Congressman Chet Edwards

"This is no surprise because everyone knew that John Ashcroft could not act impartially in this matter. This preclearance does not, in any way, stop the federal court from opposing the proposed map on the basis of violations of the Voting Rights Act.

Attorney General Ashcroft should be open and honest with the people of Texas and admit publicly whether he overturned recommendations from his non-political, professional staff. If Mr. Ashcroft isn't willing to provide that info to the public, then it is proof that he made a political decision, not a legal one."

Representatives Jim Dunnam and Garnet Coleman:

The federal courts will decide the fate of this unprecedented assault on minority voting rights, not Aschroft/DeLay Republican operatives in the Justice Department," said Rep. Jim Dunnam (D-Waco). "The Department of Justice made dubious history today when for the first time in its history it granted pre-clearance to a redistricting plan that actually eliminates minority congressional districts. In an effort to elect seven more Republican Congressman, the DOJ approved a map that will rob up to 3.6 million minority Texans of their voice in Congress. DOJ's opinion only address section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and is not binding on the federal courts. Objections raised by civil rights groups and Democrats in court under Section 2 of the act and the United States Constitution are not affected by the DOJ action."

Meanwhile, the Dallas Morning News is talking up a potential race between Joe Barton and Martin Frost.

Here's a link to the Texas Democratic Party press release.

Shock and Awe, Internet Style

By Jim Dallas

Strike fear in the hearts of evil-doers and vote for either legalized gay marriage or "civil unions" in this online poll by the American Family Association ("We're not anti-gay, we're just against the radical homosexual agenda!").

As of the moment, the options two (legalized marriage) and three (civil unions) hold a 53 percent combined-majority.

Thanks of course to Thumb on Atrios's Eschaton.

NAACP: Remap Destroys Voting Rights Act

By Byron LaMasters

For the latest on the redistricting trial, check out my post over on the Yellow Dog Blog today.

Texans in Court for Selling Vibrators

By Byron LaMasters

Well, it's certainly great to see our tax dollars hard at work cracking down on illicit vibrators, obviously a great threat to the moral fabric of our society:

A Texas housewife is in big trouble with the law for selling a vibrator to a pair of undercover cops, and the Brisbane vibrator company she works for says Texas is an "antiquated place'' with more than its share of "prudes.''

Joanne Webb, a former fifth-grade teacher and mother of three, was in a county court in Cleburne, Texas, on Monday to answer obscenity charges for selling the vibrator to undercover narcotics officers posing as a dysfunctional married couple in search of a sex aid.

Webb, a saleswoman for Passion Parties of Brisbane, faces a year in jail and a $4,000 fine if convicted.

"What I did was not obscene,'' Webb said. ""What's obscene is that the government is taking action about what we do in our bedrooms.''

The arrest of Webb in Cleburne, a small town 50 miles southwest of Dallas, was the first time that any of the company's 3,000 sales consultants have been busted, said Pat Davis, the president of Passion Parties. She said the company was outraged by the charges and stood behind Webb.

"It makes you wonder what they're thinking out there in Texas,'' Davis said. "They sound like prudes, with antiquated laws. They must have all their street crime under control in Texas if they're going to spend tax money arresting us.''

For the past year, Webb has sold the company's line of vibrators, gels, lubricants, strawberry-flavored nipple cream and "edible passion puddings.'' The merchandise is offered for sale in private, Tupperware-style parties to women who may be reluctant to visit an adult novelty store.

God save Texas. As I've said before, we may have nixed the sodomy laws post-Lawrence, but even so, Texas remains home to scores of stupid sex laws.

Via Atrios.

Sing it, Doc!

By Jim Dallas

I remember saying something just like this to Byron on the phone last summer while I was waiting in line for the Bolivar Peninsula-Galveston Island ferry:

"I'm a firm proponent of Republicans getting the majority of seats in Texas," said Dr. John Alford, a political science professor at Rice University. "This goes beyond that ... into a territory where the nature of the system itself determines the outcome, rather than the will of the voters."

He said that the old map still in use – under which Republicans hold 15 of 32 seats – actually favors the GOP. Republicans could grab a majority of the seats, he predicted, if the party would campaign effectively against Democratic incumbents elected in districts with large numbers of crossover Republicans.

As much as I hate to say it, we'd be delusional to think that the Republicans don't have a slight edge in Texas right now. This much goes without saying.

And given that, all Texans deserve a redistricting map that allows the election of representatives who, you know, represent their views (which, admittedly, are often favorable to the Republican leadership).

And you know what? The court-ordered map that was put in place during 2001 allows that. A majority of the Texas delegation have conservative voting records (all 15 Republicans plus Charlie Stenholm and Ralph Hall have greater-than-50 percent scores from the American Conservative Union).

And there'd be even more solid conservatives in the Texas delegation if the people who voted for George W. Bush and Rick Perry voted against good Democrats like Max Sandlin, Chet Edwards, and Nick Lampson.

But they don't - and that is their right, to be represented.

We're Texas, by golly, and we don't need partisan extremists like Tom DeLay and Tom Craddick telling us how to vote.

But it gets worse --

Alford, who has analyzed voting trends since 1992 that show Texas becoming increasingly dominated by Republican voters, said that the court-drawn map currently in use strikes a balance between minority voting rights and the continuing GOP tide. But Texas Republicans are far from satisfied with the existing map because several entrenched Democrats continue to win Republican-leaning districts, in part because credible GOP candidates are reluctant to take on incumbents.

[...]

"I'm a firm proponent of Republicans getting a majority of the seats in Texas. I want them to win a majority," Alford said. "There are plenty of districts that Republicans could win if they simply did it the old-fashioned way," he said, referring to the current map.

Shorter Alford - "The Republicans re- redistricted because they were too lazy and incompetent to compete with Democrats."

That pretty much sums it up, doesn't it?

Charles has all the gritty details.

Oh boy...

By Jim Dallas

The next version of Microsoft Windows is code-named "Longhorn."

Where are UT's attorneys on this one?

Perry Tales

By Byron LaMasters

What was the worst Perry Tale of 2003? Vote in the Texas Democratic Party's online Poll.

There's so many possibilities but the TDP folks narrowed your choices down to ten. Here they are:

• Perry Spends $10 Million to Study Cow DNA During Budget Crisis


• Perry Admits Republicans Unprepared to Lead on Education


• Perry Wastes $10 Million on 3 Redistricting Special Sessions After Promising Not To


• Perry Cuts Funding for G.I. Forum in Retaliation for Redistricting Protests


• Perry Raises 'Tax on the Middle-Class' and Hikes State University Tuition


• Perry Breaks Pledge and Imposes $2.7 Billion in Fines, Fees on Texans


• Perry Parks in Handicapped Space While Filing Bush's Papers


• Perry Considers Phil Gramm's 'Dead Peasant' Retired Teacher Insurance Proposal


• Perry Uses Taxpayer Funded Non-Profit to Fundraise


• Perry Has Disabled Activists Arrested Outside His Office

Tough choices, but good luck!

More on eSlate voting machines

By Jim Dallas

Travis County's voting machines, as noted previously, are very similar to those in Houston. Thus it's usually a good thing to pay heed to stories from the Bayou City.

The Houston Chronicle has a report today on a number of security issues that have been brought up by analysts.

While there are four areas of "high" risk, none of the failures seem particularly damning. Given that this is new technology, I am inclined to give officials the benefit of the doubt, although clear progress needs to be made towards rectifying these lapses.

The report doesn't address the one demand some activists have -- paper receipts.

As an aside, I did get a return call from Travis County voting guru Gail Fisher. She assured me that Travis County has a backup plan for the sort of