Burnt Orange Report

Linking Talton

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

It's hard to think things are funny about Rep. Talton when it comes to his gay parent hating ways, but apparently it can be funny, according to another austin blogger.

As a side note, there will be a protest of HJR 6, the anti-gay marriage amendment tomorrow (Sunday) at noon. Meet at the TX DOT parking lot down at South Congress and Riverside, they are going to march up to the Capitol.

Ann Coulter to Speak at UT

By Byron LaMasters

This should certainly provide some fireworks on campus. I'm not particularly pleased that my student fees are being spent to bring this lunatic to campus, but then again, I'm sure that many conservative students felt the same way about Michael Moore. If anyone has an idea on how progressives on campus should respond, leave your thoughts in comments:

ANN COULTER TO SPEAK AT UT AUSTIN

The Student Endowed Centennial Lectureship (SECL) and the Student Events Center Distinguished Speakers Committee (DSC) are pleased to invite UT Austin students, faculty, and staff to a lecture with Ann Coulter, political columnist and best-selling author. Ms. Coulter will speak on Tuesday, May 3, 2005, at 7:30 p.m. in the LBJ Auditorium. Passes are free and will be available on a first-come, first-served basis to those with a valid UT ID (students, faculty and staff) beginning at 8 a.m. Monday, May 2 at the Student Events Center front desk, located at the north end of the 4th level of the Texas Union (UNB 4.300).

Passes do NOT guarantee admission. For the sake of gaining quick and easy admission to the LBJ Auditorium, please arrive early. Be advised, all bags are prohibited and, to maintain a safe environment, all persons are subject to search.

Coulter is the legal correspondent for Human Events and writes a popular syndicated column for Universal Press Syndicate. She is a frequent guest on many TV shows, including Hannity and Colmes, Wolf Blitzer Reports, HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher, The O'Reilly Factor, Good Morning America and has been profiled in numerous publications, including Time, the Guardian (UK), the New York Observer, and National Journal.

Coulter clerked for the United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and was an attorney in the Department of Justice Honors Program for outstanding law school graduates.

After practicing law for a firm in New York City, Coulter worked for the United States Senate Judiciary Committee. Following her tenure with the Senate, she became a litigator with the Center for Individual Rights in Washington, DC, a public interest law firm dedicated to the defense of individual rights with particular emphasis on freedom of speech, civil rights, and the free exercise of religion.

A Connecticut native, Coulter graduated with honors from Cornell University School of Arts & Sciences, and received her J.D. from University of Michigan Law School, where she was an editor of The Michigan Law Review.

For questions about passes, please telephone the Student Events Center at 512-475-6630.

There's fascism and then there's Fascism

By Jim Dallas

Good Lord, if you're going to ban and/or burn books, at least do it for a good reason.

Republican Alabama lawmaker Gerald Allen says homosexuality is an unacceptable lifestyle. As CBS News Correspondent Mark Strassmann reports, under his bill, public school libraries could no longer buy new copies of plays or books by gay authors, or about gay characters.

"I don't look at it as censorship," says State Representative Gerald Allen. "I look at it as protecting the hearts and souls and minds of our children."

Books by any gay author would have to go: Tennessee Williams, Truman Capote and Gore Vidal. Alice Walker's novel "The Color Purple" has lesbian characters.

Allen originally wanted to ban even some Shakespeare. After criticism, he narrowed his bill to exempt the classics, although he still can't define what a classic is. Also exempted now Alabama's public and college libraries.

Librarian Donna Schremser fears the "thought police," would be patrolling her shelves.

"And so the idea that we would have a pristine collection that represents one political view, one religioius view, that's not a library,'' says Schremser.

Rep. Allen goes on to go through the whole "the homosexuals are destroying America" spiel.

Personally, I favor banning people like Rep. Allen from holding public office. "It's not healthy for America, it doesn't fit what we stand for... they will do whatever it takes to reach their goal." But then again, that just wouldn't be right, would it?

Rick Perry on Talton's Amendment

By Byron LaMasters

Rick Perry has offered his opinion on the gay foster care ban. He predicts that it will be taken off in committee, but will sign it either way. The Houston Chronicle reports:

Legislators writing the final version of a bill overhauling the state's Child Protective Services system will kill a controversial provision that would prohibit homosexuals from being foster parents, Gov. Rick Perry predicted Thursday.

But if the House-approved ban survives, Perry said he would sign the measure, provided it was adequately funded and made other necessary improvements in the embattled agency.

"I don't think it (the amendment) is going to be on there (the bill) when it comes to my desk," he said. "This bill's too important to have it bogged down." [...]

Perry said he didn't think the House amendment against gay foster parents, which faces strong opposition from senators, will survive a House-Senate conference committee.

But he added, "If the bill has the funding in it (and) if it does the things that we've laid out needs to happen, I'm going to sign the bill if that amendment's on it or not.

"CPS is really important, getting it fixed," Perry said, noting he had declared the legislation an emergency in the wake of a series of highly publicized deaths of children who weren't adequately protected by the agency.

Perry said that in an "ideal world" he would want foster children placed with "a family that had a mom and a dad."

But gay foster parents who are "loving and caring," he added, are "better than having the kids being abused, obviously."

Well, it's not obvious to Robert Talton.

This Is Just Not Right...

By Andrea Meyer

This is just wrong!

The partisanship on the Republicans' side has officially gone too far.

Willie Nelson is an important part of Texas culture, not to mention a country music legend, with fans belonging to all political parties. Even people like me who are not country music fans enjoy his work. The man has even made guest appearances on King of the Hill. He has the Hank Hill seal of approval.

The reasons given by these state reps are completely ludicrous. Do Democrats in Houston like having an airport called Bush International around? Maybe not, but the man is an ex-president. DC is predominantly Democratic, and they have an airport named after Reagan. Ames, IA has a street named after Mamie Eisenhower, and Democrats live there. Pembroke Pines, FL, has a lot of streets named after former presidents, and my Republican ex-friend never complained about living on Johnson Street--not to my knowledge, anyway.

I don't think that a simple road named after a Texas legend would ruffle anyone's feathers or cause rioting among constituents. And I don't think that either of the stick-in-the-mud state reps would ever be associated with drinking, smoking, or supporting Democrats.

I think that Reps. Ogden and Wentworth deserve a few calls to their offices...

What an original idea

By Jim Dallas

Princeton University's "Filibuster" is now going into it's 76th hour.

Making The Pie Higher

By Jim Dallas

I don't make mere idle threats. Enjoy. (Click here to download .WMV).

Oh yes, my career as a 1970s B-movie director has only begun... muahahahahaha... :: cough :: (Please keep in mind this is a parody, it's kind of supposed to be extremely cheesy).

Conservative Groups Support Gregg Knaupe

By Byron LaMasters

In recent days, Austin Place 3 city council candidate Gregg Knaupe has received support from two conservative organizations - The Young Conservatives of Texas and the right-wing newspaper, The Austin Review.

YCT writes the following about the Place 3 race (via email):

Austin City Council Place 3 - The four candidates are all Democrats, but there are big differences. Endorsed by the Austin Police, centrist Gregg Knaupe opposes the smoking ban, supports building roads, and denounced the affirmative action taxpayer-funded bailout of a private nightclub. Left-wingers Margot Clarke and Mandy Dealey have both been lobbyists for Planned Parenthood and can be counted on to put salamanders before humans. Jennifer Kim gave money to liberal Ann Kitchen when she ran against Rep. Todd Baxter and supports quotas in city hiring.

The editorial board of The Austin Review writes the following in their endorsement of Gregg Knaupe:

It would be a travesty if some conservatives voted for a leftist like Margot Clarke simply because she opposes toll roads. Both Clarke and Mandy Dealey have had as their lifelong occupations liberal political activism for groups like Planned Parenthood and the Sierra Club. Both support the smoking ban and will be guaranteed votes on the Council for higher taxes and more regulation. In contrast, Gregg Knaupe opposes the smoking ban, spoke out against the outrageous Midtown Live night club bailout, and will be a common sense voice for fiscal restraint on the Council.

Conservative Austin blog, Voice in the Wilderness has also endorsed Gregg Knaupe:

This is the most competitive race of the three. Clarke and Dealey are liberal ideologues and clearly out of the mainstream, even for Austin. Kim and Knaupe are more intriguing. Both seem less nutty than the others and have some economic development chops, at least for Democrats. I like Knaupe’s vision for the medical school and how it can help with both economic development and indigent health care. Pulling it off will be tricky, but he seems to have thought through the idea and his health care cache will help make it happen.

VitW endorses Greg Knaupe for City Council, Place 3.

Gregg Knaupe is not a Republican, but it is clear to me that many of his supporters represent the right-wing of Austin City politics.

City Council Endorsements

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

If you wanted to know how all the Groups in this City have endorsed for the City Council races, see below.

Austin Progressive Coalition PAC (Central Austin Democrats & University Democrats)
Place 1, Lee Leffingwell
Place 4, Betty Dunkerley
Smoking Ordinance -- FOR
ACC Expansion -- FOR

Austin Tejano Democrats
Place 1, Runoff vote resulted in No Endorsement
Place 3, Runoff vote resulted in No Endorsement
Place 4, Betty Dunkerley
Smoking Ordinance -- AGAINST
ACC Expansion -- FOR

Austin Lesbian Gay Political Caucus
Place 1, Lee Leffingwell
Place 3, Margot Clarke and Mandy Dealey
Place 4, Betty Dunkeryley

Black Austin Democrats
Place 1, Lee Leffingwell
Place 3, Jennifer Kim
Place 4, Betty Dunkerley

Capital Area Progressive Democrats
Place 1, Lee Leffingwell
Place 3, Margot Clarke
Place 4, Betty Dunkerley

Central Austin Democrats
Place 1, Lee Leffingwell
Place 3, Margot Clarke
Place 4, Betty Dunkerley
Smoking Ordinance -- FOR
ACC Expansion -- FOR

Huston-Tillotson Young Democrats Coalition
Place 1, Andrew Bucknall
HTYD's will not be making endorsements in either Place 3 or Place 4.

North by North West Democrats
Place 1, No Endorsement
Place 3, No Endorsement
Place 4, Betty Dunkerley

North East Travis County Democrats
Place 1, Lee Leffingwell
Place 3, Margot Clarke
Place 4, Betty Dunkerley

Saint Edward's University College Democrats
Place 1, Lee Leffingwell
Place 3, Gregg Knaupe
Place 4, Betty Dunkerley

South Austin Democrats
Place 1, Lee Leffingwell
Place 3, Margot Clarke
Place 4, Betty Dunkerley

South Austin Tejano Democrats
Place 1, Lee Leffingwell
Place 3, Mandy Dealey
Place 4, Betty Dunkerley

South West Austin Democrats
Place 1, Lee Leffingwell
Place 3, Margot Clarke
Place 4, Betty Dunkerley

Stonewall Democrats
Place 1, Lee Leffingwell
Place 3, Margot Clarke
Place 4, No Endorsement

Texas Environmental Democrats
Place 1, Lee Leffingwell
Place 3, No Endorsement
Place 4, Betty Dunkerley

Travis County Democratic Women
Place 1, Lee Leffingwell
Place 3, Dual endorsement: Margot Clarke & Jennifer Kim
Place 4, Betty Dunkerley

University of Texas Democrats
Place 1, Lee Leffingwell
Place 3, Mandy Dealey
Place 4, Betty Dunkerley
Smoking Ordinance -- FOR
ACC Expansion -- FOR

West Austin Democrats
Place 1, Lee Leffingwell
Place 3, Margot Clarke
Place 4, Betty Dunkerley
Smoking Ordinance -- FOR
ACC Expansion -- FOR

Anti-Gay Foster Parents Amendment not Dead

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

We thought it was over. We were told and assured that it would die in committee. But this is Texas and things are of course, always too good to be true.

Speaker Craddick announced his 5 appointments to the conference committee for SB 6, the Child Protective Services (CPS) Reform bill:

Rep. Suzanna Gratia Hupp (R- Lampasas), Rep. Carlos Uresti (D-San Antonio), Rep. John Davis (R-Houston), Rep. Robert Talton (Bigot-Pasadena), and Rep. Toby Goodman (R-Arlington).

As the Statesman Blog says:

Talton seemingly has little connection to the bill: he wasn’t a member of the Human Services Committee that crafted the House plan. He is chair of the Urban Affairs Committee and is a member of the civil practices and redistricting committees.

Rep. Suzanna Hupp, R-Lampasas, is chairwoman of the Human Services Committee and author of the House reform plan. She, along with Sen. Jane Nelson, R-Lewisville, will head the negotiations. Nelson is author of the Senate reform plan.

Reps. John Davis, R-Houston, and Toby Goodman, R-Arlington, both members of the Human Services Committee, were appointed to the conference committee. Rep. Carlos Uresti, D-San Antonio, the fifth committee member, was chairman of the Human Services Committee last session and crafted the Adult Protective Services reform part of SB 6.

So now it comes down to Republicans v. Republicans. The author of the Bill v. the author of the amendment. But don't let the conference committee stop Talton's idiocy. From another Statesman article...

"If I can find it in another bill, I will certainly do that, if it doesn't survive SB 6," Talton said. "I can't imagine the Senate pulling that out. I would be very surprised."

Lawmakers can add amendments to bills that deal with related topics. Late in the legislative session, legislators often attach bills that have little chance of passage on their own to larger pieces of legislation....

Hupp spoke against Talton's proposal but ultimately voted in favor of it. Gov. Rick Perry has dismissed the ban as a secondary issue that could get in the way of overhauling Child Protective Services.

What, Gov. Good-Hair not towing the Right Wing Faction's "Gays-Are-The-Antichrist" line? What's he thinking, that it's a shitty piece of legislation (duh)?

And for all you in the Austin area, here's how Central Texas House members voted on the amendment to ban gay, lesbian and bisexual people from being foster parents. The amendment passed the House last week by a vote of 81-58.

In favor: (meaning wrong) Reps. Dan Gattis, R-Georgetown; Patrick Rose, D-Dripping Springs; Mike Krusee, R-Williamson County; Todd Baxter, R-Austin.

Against: (meaning right) Reps. Dawnna Dukes, D-Austin; Terry Keel, R-Austin; Elliott Naishtat, D-Austin; Eddie Rodriguez, D-Austin; and Mark Strama, D-Austin.

Leffingwell Stays in Race for Place 1

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Lee Leffingwell, frontrunner for Austin City Council Place 1, is staying in the race as announced at his press conference this afternoon. His wife had passed on last week.

"My wife was a wonderful woman who cared for people and who cared about her community. Losing her is a great tragedy in my life," Leffingwell said at a Thursday morning press conference. "But it cannot and will not be the end of my life . . . I know that is not what she would have wanted.

"If I am fortunate enough to be elected by the voters, I will serve in honor of her memory," Leffingwell said.

I think that every Democratic group in town is also breathing a collective sigh of relief. Partly because if he had dropped out of the race, it would have made it wide open very late in the game, forcing people to re-endorse or actually have to look at the rest of the field again. My best wishes to Lee, and I hope to see him happy on election night when gets elected to the council.

Texas Campaign Finance Likely Dead

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

I was in the process of writing a story about Democrats attempt to bypass committee and bring the campaign finance reform bill to the House floor for a vote (considering there are 92 co-sponsors) but the Statesman online has a breaking news note (no story yet) that the issue may now be dead.

BREAKING NEWS

Campaign finance reform scuttled. Measure may be dead for the session. More to come at statesman.com on this developing story.

I mean, seriously, the legislature has much more important things to be doing like protecting the State from already illegal gay marriages.

Update: Statesman article is now up.

Campaign finance legislation apparently died Thursday on the House floor in a unusual showdown over rules between Speaker Tom Craddick and proponents of House Bill 1348.

The House voted 95-36 against a motion that would have taken the legislation out of the Elections Committee and straight to the House floor for a vote.

Rep. Terry Keel, D-Austin (Ed note- that should be an R, and did you know Keel voted with Democrats against the anti-gay foster care amendment? Maybe Rose could chat with him and Casteel), who is Craddick's expert on legislative rules, warned members they were driving a stake in the heart of the legislation.

"I think this stunt kills it," he said after the vote.

Keel, who had been a co-sponsor of the legislation, said the bill was being used as a partisan shot at Craddick and he argued that Thursday's vote was in support of the orderly legislative process.

Rep. Tommy Merritt, R-Longview, raised the motion calling for an immediate House vote. He denied that Democratic colleagues had put him up to it....

The bill has been co-sponsored by more than half the House's 150 members and Craddick has promised that the Elections Committee will vote on the measure next week. But committee chairwoman Mary Denny, R-Aubrey, says, it doesn't have enough support to clear her panel.

Craddick- 1
Ethics- 0

These Men Have A Plan, A Plan to Destroy Social Security...

By Jim Dallas

Bush and DeLay made the front page of the Houston Chronicle together last night. Meanwhile, Brad DeLong gives the Galveston Plan the golden raspberry. As does the H-Chron.

Someone please cut an ad. If you don't I will. And I know how to use Flash now so you all better be scared!

In other news, former Senator (and 2004 Dem VP nominee) John Edwards was in town last night. I missed because I was studying for exams, but I hear it was good!

Lighter Side Of The Lege: Wild Hogs

By Vince Leibowitz

I wasn't aware that the Texas Department of Agriculture had asked the Legislature for a half-million dollar appropriation to study--of all things--the state's wild hog population.

My problem is that I can't decide whether or not the appropriation is as stupiud as it really sounds or not.

The appropriation request came to my attention via an AP story which happens to mention Van Zandt County, my home county.

Our little hamlet made news back in 2003-04 when our County Commissioners actually placed a $7 bounty on each wild hog killed. You had merely to bring a complete set of wild hog ears to the County Extension Office to collect your bounty. And, in a time of tight budgets, the county shelled out about $14,000 for about 2,000 killed feral hogs.

I don't dispute that wild (or feral) hogs are a problem. I've seen first-hand the damage they can do to land and crops.

What I'm wondering is why it will take $500,000 to study how to control the population? Can't the state look at some other population control studies for other incorigible species and perhaps transfer some of those methods to the wild hogs, maybe to the tune of $100,000 or $250,000 instead of half a million?

If you have no idea what a "feral hog," is or what they do and are wondering why in the heck the state would appropriate one red cent for such a project, read a selection from the AP article:

In short, the nation's largest feral hog population is making a mess of Texas.

Farmers and ranchers - who sustain an estimated $52 million annually in damage at the snouts of the rapidly growing wild hog population - are asking the legislature and hunters for help controlling the estimated 2 million animals.

"Bring an AK-47, because that's what you'll need," Canton cattle rancher Don Metch said.

The nocturnal, omnivorous hogs can grow to 400 pounds and have four fierce-looking tusks that can extend five inches from their top and bottom jaws. They're more bristly and muscular than domestic pigs, and they can be ill-tempered when cornered.

Feral hogs are found in 230 of the state's 254 counties, according to Texas Parks and Wildlife Department estimates. Nationwide, hogs number 4 million in 42 states, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates.

[...]

The Texas Department of Agriculture has asked legislators for $500,000 to start a two-year pilot program to study the hogs in hopes of controlling them. In the meantime, Texas relies on its year-round hunting season.

Still, the hogs are causing all sorts of damage in the nation's No. 2 agriculture state.

They uproot sweet potatoes, peanuts, corn, rice and other crops. So keen are their snouts that hogs can pull up plants one by one. But they're typically not so tidy and just tear up pastures. Sweet potato farmers have reported dozens of acres destroyed in one night.

Beef producers say the hogs knock down fences and tear holes in pasture to get to grass roots and grub worms. They also kill goats, sheep and other small livestock.

[...]

The hogs are descendants of domestic pigs brought to America in the 1600s by French and Spanish explorers, and of Eurasian boars brought for hunting in the early 1900s.

They reproduce so rapidly that there's a joke among wildlife officials: When a sow has six piglets, you can expect eight to survive.

Two years ago in East Texas, the damage was so bad that Van Zandt County officials offered a $7 bounty for a matched set of hogs ears. The program ended in 2004 after residents cashed in on more than 2,000 hogs.

But wildlife officials hope hunters keep on hunting - and even expand their efforts.

"What we need is more processing plants," said Brian Cummins, an extension agent in Van Zandt County. "And a good sausage recipe."

Aside from arming farmers with AK-47s, or embarking on a study for a better sausage recipe, as our often humerous (and very qualified) County Extension Agent suggusts, what exactly will the Department of Agriculture do with $500,000 to study the wild hog population?

I'm wondering if some of the farmers who have problems with the feral hogs are scratching their head about the half-million appropriation request, too. After all, I'd venture to say individual farmers could give the DOA some innovative ideas on feral hog population control--for free.

For some reason, thinking about a group of people in the nearby city of Grand Saline who "capture" feral cats and have them neutered/spayed and then release them back to the dumpsters from whence they came, I had a fleeting thought of Texas Department of Agriculture agents wandering the swampy bottoms of Van Zandt County with tranqualizer darts and hog contraceptives. Is there such a thing as a hog contraceptive? Maybe they could use tracking devices and follow the feral hogs using spy satellites and then call ahead and warn farmers: "They're coming your way! Get the AK!"

Since a mind is a terrible thing to waste, I'll stop wasting mine on potential solutions for the Department of Agriculture. After all, they are the ones getting $500,000 to come up with a plan.

Vince Leibowitz is County Chairman of the Democratic Party of Van Zandt County and 3rd Vice President of the Texas Democratic County Chair's Association.

Ethics, Delay, and more Controversy

By Katie Naranjo

Not surprising, but still annoying Tom Delay is being accused of fraud again, only this time it is a lobbyist and trips to foreign countries. Both sides in the house seem to be on edge, as Democrats are not willing to provide a 6th vote in the Ethics commission and Republicans are trying to not make concessions. At least Democrats still have a voice with the Ethics Commission, since it is divided into 5 Republicans and 5 Democrats. It is the only arena where the minority has some power.

Hopefully something becomes of the claims from the Democrats since it has made the body ineffective and crooked in the international media. Maybe after all of the bad press and hometown editorials condemning the rule changes the GOP will make concessions to Democrats and there will be action taken.

Thank God though that Chris Bell is from Texas and filed the complaint against Delay, I am really impressed with this fellow Texan who will stand up against others. Is it not ironic that Delay and Bell are from Texas?

For more on the Delay saga and the Ethics Commission, click here.

[Byron - I've added Lloyd Doggett's statement on today's events in the extended entry]

STATEMENT OF WAYS & MEANS COMMITTEE MEMBER REP. LLOYD DOGGETT
On the House GOP's Retreat on the Partisan Ethics Rules

Washington, DC- Today, the Republican-controlled House of Representative belatedly reversed itself on the misguided partisan ethics rule changes made previously this year in an attempt to protect Tom DeLay. In response, Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) issued the following statement.

"By unilaterally weakening the rules, removing the Republican ethics chair who had the courage to discipline Tom DeLay, and firing bipartisan professional investigative staff, the House Republican leadership has shattered meaningful ethics enforcement. Belatedly restoring the prior, bipartisan rules is only a first, tentative step to reversing this outrageous misconduct. It is too early to tell if this is just more eyewash and hogwash or whether it represents a genuine willingness to restore accountability."

Speedy Response

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

My hometown Representative (now that I'm registered to vote back in Fredericksburg again) is Carter Casteel, a Republican woman who comes from a four county, 80% Republican district. The other day when I was in the gallery watching the HJR 6 debate on the floor, it was interesting to see how active she was being the second termer that she is (in addition to having a very snappy Blue dress and a House website picture that reminds me of Bea Arthur from Golden Girls which makes her that much more cool).

That aside, I was quite suprised when she voted against Amendment 60 to SB6, the Child Protective Services Bill amendment that would have banned gay foster parents and spent $8 million dollars of Texans money to create an investigative unit in CPS to root out all those homo-sech-u-als attempting to parents children already abused or displaced by their heterosexual parents. Though there was some crossover in voting on the amendment, I certainly didn't expect my hometown rep, from one of the most conservative districts in Texas to stand against the rest of her party on this one. Makes me that much more sad that Rep. Patrick Rose whose district neighbors Casteel's, went ahead and voted for it.

I can understand Casteel voting for HJR 6. I can maybe understand Rose doing so though I'm still very upset on that one. But when Casteel can vote against the Talton-gay-families-are-evil amendent, and Rose votes for it, it makes me really upset. Thank goodness it's coming off in committee. Below the fold is the e-mail I sent Rep. Casteel. I received a response an hour later to my suprise, even if it was short, it's nice to know that some Reps can get back to their constituants directly without form letters.

Representative Casteel,

I wanted to thank you for what I see as a couragous vote against
Amdendment 60 to the CPS reform bill, an amendment that could have
stripped thousands of children out of loving foster homes and forced the
CPS system to become an investigative body reminiscent of the SS in WWII
Germany. Having had relatives who were taken out of their homes and
placed in concentration camps because of their political ideology during
the war, I feel that such actions made possible by that amendment would
have hurt Texas families as much as it hurts people's opinion of the
Legislature. Thank you again.

---

That statement in SB 6 should come out in Conference Committee. It
should have never been put on in the House. carter

What are the Chances of a Democrat Winning in Texas?

By Byron LaMasters

Via Rick Perry vs. The World is speculation by Texas Monthly's Patricia Kilday Hart on Democrats chances to take back the governor's office in 2006. Hart writes:

The chance of a Democratic upset in the 2006 governor’s race is as likely as, well, Bill Clements winning in ’78. Or Mark White winning in ’82. Or Ann Richards winning in ’90. Or... [...]

Another reason the Democrats have to field a candidate is that Texas gubernatorial elections have been nothing if not unpredictable. In 1972 the backlash from the Sharpstown scandal wiped out Preston Smith in the Democratic primary and elected Dolph Briscoe. Six years later John Hill upset Briscoe in the primary and was poised to waltz into the Governor’s Mansion until Bill Clements exploited Jimmy Carter’s unpopularity to become the state’s first Republican governor since Reconstruction. Clements was regarded as a shoo-in for reelection, but Democratic attorney general Mark White rode the crest of a national anti-Republican fervor to oust him in 1982. Clements returned the favor in ’86. And who could forget how GOP oilman Claytie Williams had the 1990 race sewn up, until Ann Richards reaped the benefits of his self-inflicted wounds? That surprise was matched in ’94 when a certain political newcomer with a certain famous name beat Richards despite her widespread popularity. But the past two elections have produced the expected easy victories for George W. Bush and Perry.

The past quarter century of Texas politics should teach skeptical Democrats a lesson. It could be argued that of the past seven gubernatorial elections in this state, five (1978, 1982, 1986, 1990 and 1994) were relative upsets. Does this mean that Democrats should be confident of victory in 2006? No, but it should teach us the lesson that anything can happen. Races for governor see much more cross-over voting than other races. When Bill Clements was elected the first Republican governor since reconstruction in 1978, there was only one other Republican statewide elected official (U.S. Senator John Tower).

Recent elections of Democratic governors in some of the reddest states in the country such as Montana, Wyoming, Kansas, Oklahoma and Arizona (and on the other side, Republican governors in states like Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Vermont and Maryland) show that it is not uncommon for a state to vote against their partisan leanings in a race for governor. Chris Bell frequently uses the Kansas analogy as an example of how a Democrat can win in a red state.

Democrats have a lot to capitalize on in the 2006 campaign. First, since Republicans control state government on every level, Democrats can run as outsiders and reformers who will prevent too much single party power and corruption. Second, Democrats can specifically run on a reform message against the corruption of Tom DeLay, Tom Craddick, TRMPAC, etc. Third, Democrats can run a campaign against the backwards priorities of Republicans in this state - an entire summer of special sessions and millions of taxpayer dollars on re-redistricting, proposals to fund our public schools by lap dances and slot machines, cutting health care for kids and teachers and preventing Texas from being a leader in new science such as stem cell research.

It is overly optimistic to suggest a Democratic victory next November, but the stars are aligning for a competitive race - a divided Republican party with a very bloody primary looming, a second mid-term election of a president that has increasingly less public support (even in Texas), and a Republican Party that has utterly failed to find solutions to school finance and other critical issues to Texans.

Rick Perry vs. the World pegs the Democrats chance of winning the race for governor at 5-7.5% (13-1 to 19-1). I'm not an oddsmaker, so I'll pass on making a guess, but I'd give Democrats more of a chance than he does, but still well under a 50% chance of winning. Anyone else out there want to venture a guess?

Pardon me while I contemplate a revolution

By Jim Dallas

For quite some time, I've argued that Texas Democrats need to be more aggressively pro-tenant, at the very least because we need to give renters a reason to vote. To be sure, the distinction between Texas Democrats and Republicans is already fairly stark. But after studying the Texas Landlord and Tenant Code (Title 8 of the Property Code), I'm almost upset enough to take up arms. Or at the very least, be very suspicious of ever renting in this state.

To say that the Code is "pro-landlord" would be an understatement; it is of, by, and for the landlord lobby in reaction to "activist" judges who, among other things, started requiring landlords to make their properties habitable. In Texas, that's a good idea, but it's not required.

Put another way: since it was drafted, commercial tenants (who are not covered by the more-regressive attributes of the Code, because, after all, commercial tenants don't have to live in the buildings they are renting) have acquired more rights under common law than residential tenants.

My constructive proposal: ditch the Landlord-Tenant Code and adopt the Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. After all, if the URLTA is good enough for at least 15 other states, it's good enough for Texas.

On the good side, I am glad to see that Texas has banned rent-control.

New Chris Bell Website

By Byron LaMasters

The official relaunch is tomorrow, but the new website is now up. It has many of the bells an whistles that you would expect from a campaign website in 2005. The campaign has a podcast and blog, and most importantly an easy way to sign up and donate money.

Irony

By Byron LaMasters

It's a bit ironic that Rick Perry and Elton John both attend an event in Austin a day after John made a marriage announcement, and the same day that the Texas legislature voted to make gay marriage double secret illegal. The Austin American Statesman writes:

A day after announcing plans to marry his longtime partner, Elton John performed just blocks from the Texas Capitol, where lawmakers are working to put a gay marriage ban in the state constitution.

John performed at a fundraiser for tennis star Andy Roddick's charitable foundation, with Republican Gov. Rick Perry also in attendance.

In an interview with The Associated Press, John would not discuss personal matters, including Monday's reports that he planned to marry David Furnish, his partner of 11 years, later this year.

The same day as John's marriage announcement, the Texas House of Representatives approved a constitutional ban on gay marriage. State law already bans gay marriage from being recognized.

Also from today's irony department, check out this post from Pink Dome.

Another Blogger Story

By Byron LaMasters

This time from the Fort Worth Star Telegram. My position remains the same - any publicity is good publicity, so thanks for the plug to BOR. We get top listing under "Popular Texas political bloggers":

Burnt Orange Report -- Byron LaMasters of Dallas, a student at the University of Texas at Austin, and friends cover state politics. They support the Democratic party. www.BurntOrangeReport.com

I can't complain with that, and I certainly appreciate the plugs from State Rep. Aaron Pena's blog.

Texan: Dems should act like Dems

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

The Daily Texan takes some shots at the state Democratic Party in today's editorial. Some of the choice lines...

The only surprise is that 18 Democrats voted for the ban; 16 didn't vote at all. Less than half of the state's Democratic reps actually voted against the gay marriage ban, an appalling statistic.

Monday's vote underscores the fact that Texas has no liberal party. The state's Democratic party is centrist, at best. They just look liberal compared to state's overly conservative population.

The "yes" vote from Patrick Rose, D-Dripping Springs, is particularly distressing. Rose, 26, went to UT Law School. If you can't count on a young Democrat from UT to support gay marriage, who can you count on?

In addition, in a separate story, the Texan seems to like me as after yesterday's front page photo, I get this quote in today.

Karl-Thomas Musselman, a government junior and representative with the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender and Allies Affairs Agency in Student Government, said there were more important things for the state to worry about than maintaining the status quo and preserving “the second-class-citizen standing of a group of people.”

“This legislation was created out of fear,” Musselman said. “This regulation is completely unnecessary to the function of the state.”

Garnet Coleman Takes on Al Edwards for Bigoted Remarks

By Byron LaMasters

Good for Garnet Coleman. Coleman wrote this letter to the editor in response to Al Edwards remark that homosexuality is a "social ill". Here is the letter via email and Greg's Opinion:

Dear Editor:

As reported in Tuesday's Fort Worth Star Telegram, Rep. Al Edwards called homosexuality a "social ill" on the floor of the House. He stated, "I take offense when people associate me and my race and my culture with a social ill. I don’t see how the two relate."

Representative Edwards ought to be ashamed of himself. His comments are bigoted, hateful and just plain wrong. No one is comparing race with sexual orientation -- they are not the same thing, but discrimination is discrimination. As an African American, Edwards should know what it feels like to hear such hurtful words. The only way to stop prejudice is to practice what you preach. Bigotry says a lot more about a bigot's own insecurities than it says about those they target.

-- Representative Garnet Coleman (Houston)

Rep. Coleman represents District 147 in Houston and is the Chair of the Legislative Study Group (LSG) and the Texas Legislative Black Caucus (TLBC).

As the chair of a minority caucus in a minority party, it would probably be easier for Coleman to just let Edwards's comments slide. With that in mind, I'm very pleased to see Coleman do the right thing, and call out his colleague on his bigoted remark.

Ralph Hall the Gentleman?

By Byron LaMasters

Democrat-turned-Republican Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX) held a fundraiser this week to help his 2004 Democratic opponent pay off his campaign debt. Ralph Hall was never much of a Democrat, but it's hard to say that he's not a gentleman. This is certainly unusual. The Texarkana Gazette reports:

U.S. Rep. Ralph Hall, R-Rockwall, whose district this extreme northeastern corner of Texas has recently fallen into, held a fund-raiser for his Democrat challenger, Charles Nickerson of Pittsburg.

A prominent, longtime Republican helping his also-ran Democrat challenger pay of his campaign debts? [...]

It's raised a few eyebrows throughout the region but there don't appear to be any ulterior motive on Hall's part. He was once a Democrat. [...]

It wasn't anything Hall was obligated to do. He said he was compelled to do it because Nickerson ran a clean race against him.

Area Democrats and Republicans turned out to attend the fund-raiser.

Karl-Thomas on the front page

By Byron LaMasters

I probably wasn't the only one a little bit surprised to see this picture when I opened up my Daily Texan today.

Heber Taylor on the Galveston Plan

By Jim Dallas

Heber Taylor, Galveston County Daily News managing editor and voice of sweet reasonableness, wrote on Sunday:

As the hometown newspaper, we're sometimes asked what we think of this plan. We're open to changes in Social Security but don't think the Galveston Plan is the best model for change. The plan has two problems.

The first is that it benefits workers at the top of the pay scale more than it benefits those at the bottom. We'll admit that's a hotly contested conclusion. We've followed the debate. We've studied the arguments on both sides.

The conclusions that make the most sense are those drawn from a study conducted by the Government Accounting Office in 1999. In general, the study found that the alternate plan benefited higher-paid employees. The study found that low-income workers would fare better under Social Security.

Obviously, that's a problem that any attempt at reform should avoid.

The peple who most need an adequate guaranteed income are those at the bottom of the pay scale. Any effort to reform Social Security must take that truth as a starting point.

The second problem with the Galveston Plan is that a worker can opt out of the deal. Some county workers have done so. Over the years, we've talked to some who cashed in their chips, bought a new car and started looking for work elsewhere.

What do they have to show for their time with the county? Nothing. No Galveston Plan. No Social Security.

What happens when those workers retire? The burden of caring for them probably will fall back on the public. That burden is one of the things Social Security was designed to alleviate.

If you think about the analogy between Bush's proposal to reform Social Security and the Galveston Plan you'll come to one conclusion. The analogy is awfully superficial.

Bush wants to let workers invest some fraction of their contributions in the stock market. The county's alternate pln invests all of an employee's withholdings and county's contributions into conservative investments such as insurance annuities.

People who are looking at the Galveston Plan in hopes that it will shed light the President's proposal should look elsewhere for illumination.

Nonetheless, if President Bush wants to claim his plan is "like" the Galveston Plan, then I'm more than willing to make him "own it."

P.S. Incidentally, there seems to be a bit of cognitive dissonance about the Galveston Plan. Initially put forward of as proof that a privatized system could work, subsequent criticism has resulted in other privatizers backing off the claim and, indeed, blaming the "liberal media" for even suggesting the analogy. Did Dubya get the memo? Apparently not. He's not getting many of the memos these days.

(Also, George, we're putting the coversheets on all TPS reports. Did you get the memo about this? If you could just go ahead and make sure you do that from now on, that would be great. Uh, I'll go ahead and make sure you get another copy of that memo, ok?)

The Bush-DeLay Social Security Destruction Plan

By Jim Dallas

Coming to a town near you.

Two thumbs down - Charles Grassley, Republican Senator from Iowa.

They really just keep handing us talking points, don't they?

(Hat tip to Kos, et. al.)

DCCC's Role In Lampson's Decision?

By Vince Leibowitz

Sources in D.C. and Texas this morning tell me that, though Richard Morrison withdrew from the CD 22 race on his own and for personal and financial reasons (see earlier post), the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and some of its major donors played a major role in getting former Congressman Nick Lampson to enter the race.

Evidently, in spite of the fact that Richard Morrison has a large grassroots base in CD 22 and came closer than anyone has to beating Tom DeLay, the DCCC and some of its major donors reportedly recruited, encouraged and possibly even promised Lampson financial support if he would enter the race. My sources indicate to me that Beltway, D-Trip-types--many of whom couldn't find CD 22 on a color-coded map with written instructions--determined that Lampson was the more "electable" candidate than Morrison.

Interestingly, in his last race, which I'd think the DCCC would consider, Lampson vastly outspent his opponent, former State District Judge Ted Poe, and still lost. However, Richard Morrison raised relatively little compared to DeLay's warchest, and came just as close to DeLay as Lampson did to Poe.

Lampson garnered 42.91 percent of the vote in his district, while Morrison got 41.09 in CD 22.

Furthermore, Lampson, who was a fine Congressman (not trying to attack anyone here, just reporting what the sources tell me), can't be terribly well-known in CD 22. I'd venture to say that, in a name recognition poll, Morrison is more well known in CD 2 than Lampson is in CD 22.

If I were Richard Morrison, I would have given Lampson a challenge similar to one that was brokered but never utilized when Ted Kennedy first ran for U.S. Senate in the Democratic Primary against Edward McCormick, nephew of then-U.S. House Speaker John McCormick (the late House Speaker Tip O'Neill covers it in his book, Man of the House, if you want to read about it):

Why not commission a poll of voters in CD 22--both likely election-day voters and likely Democratic Primary voters in separate polls over separate periods of time. Ask who the the voters are most likely to vote for: Morrison or Lampson. Also, poll on Lampson vs. Morrison name recognition.

After the poll (and, what the heck--both sides can conduct one by the same methodology using their own pollsters), compare the results and the guy with the best chance stays in the race.

To me, that seems like the most fair way to go about something like this.

HJR 6 Update

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Ok, I had to go hunt this down on the LGRL blog to find out why today's second reading vote on HJR 6 means it was passed to the Senate without needing a third reading in the House.

Joint resolutions are used to propose amendments to the Texas Constitution, ratify proposed amendments to the U.S. Constitution, or request a constitutional convention to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Joint resolutions proposing amendments to the Texas Constitution require a vote of two-thirds of the total membership of each house for adoption. Other joint resolutions require a simple majority vote in each house for adoption. A joint resolution takes the same course through both houses as a bill and is like a bill in all respects, except that, in the house, if it receives the required number of votes at any reading after the first reading, the resolution is passed. Three readings are still required to pass a joint resolution in the senate.

And to think, any 2 Aye votes could have just voted present and not voting and this would have been that much closer to dieing. My personal gripe, shame on Rep. Patrick Rose. I gave money to your last campaign but don't be expecting any from me the next go round.

Richard Morrison Withdraws from CD 22 Race

By Byron LaMasters

Does this mean that the path is clear for a Nick Lampson campaign in CD 22? Here is the email that Richard Morrison sent out to supporters this afternoon. I'm sure that speculation as to whether Morrison was forced out of the race will quickly ensue:

Dear Friends and Supporters,

It is with great sadness that I must withdraw my name from the race for District 22. As you all know I devoted 2 years of my life to win and placed my law practice on hold. With the prospects of having to spend another 2 years winning a primary and then challenging DeLay, my family’s financial situation is not the rosiest. My wife is expecting our 5th child in August and I feel that I must devote my time to getting my financial house in order. I think the biggest issue this county faces is our national debt and for me and mine to be facing debt that could quickly become unmanageable is irresponsible and unwise.

My mother and children's grandmother has also been diagnosed with cancer of the pancreas. She has vowed to me that she will fight it every step of the way and I have committed to help her with that fight. I ask for your prayers for her and my father.

I am not giving up my fight. I will continue to stay active and work hard for democrats. I ask that you do the same. Tom DeLay is bad for democracy and bad for America. If I can be so bold, I demand that each one of you will commit to work as hard for Congressman Lampson or Councilman Quan as you did for me. Democracy will suffer if you slack off even one bit.

Please do more in your community than just Democratic politics. Become active in Rotary, the local Chamber of Commerce, or your church, mosque or synagogue. Volunteer and began to carry the load in these organizations. Become indispensable to them. And when the conversations turn to politics, let them know that you are a Democrat. Demonstrate by your service that the Democratic Party cares. Through our service we can win back what we have lost and make this great county better.

Finally, I want to thank each one you who has contributed their time,
talent and treasure. This campaign was a campaign of service to the people of District 22 and each of you deserve all of the credit. I would not have been the candidate I was without your support.

Fight on!
Richard Morrison

I know that I join many Democrats in thanking Richard Morrison for his tireless work for the Democratic Party, his fight for ethical government, and perhaps most significantly - his efforts to take on and expose Tom DeLay. I wish Richard and his family the best, and I encourage them to contiune their service to our Democratic Party, and their community.

Update: The DCCC denies attempting to force Morrison out of the race, and point to this comment by the Morrison campaign on this Kos diary.

Blogging HJR 6

By Byron LaMasters

In the Pink Texas is liveblogging HJR 6 with the appropriate title of "Smear the Queer". Pink Dome is also liveblogging the HJR 6 debate. For the short version, just read the preview.

I've been watching some of the debate on television, and I believe that Karl-Thomas is watching the debate, and hopefully he'll have some thoughts later.

Update: Some of my favorite parts of the debate - Senfronia Thompson wants her 40 acres and a mule, while Rafael Anchia, Garnett Coleman and Paul Moreno in particular have been very articulate against the bill today. Robert Talton just looks like the face of evil - oh wait, he is, and Warren Chisum just appears like a misguided grandfather. I'll update later with the vote count.

Update: Final vote, 102-29 with a bunch of abstentions (100 votes needed for passage).

Update: Another post from In the Pink Texas and lots more at Pink Dome. Statements from Senfronia Thompson and Garnett Coleman here and via their comments is the actual vote. Also in Pink Dome comments is a statement by Al Edwards that I also recall hearing. The statement by Edwards was something along the lines of how he took offense that a "social ill" (GLBT Texans) was being compared to other civil rights issues. Fortunately, most of Edwards's African-American and Hispanic colleagues felt differently as expressed by their votes.

Jump to the extended entry for the roll call vote.

AYES - 102
Allen, Ray(R); Anderson(R); Baxter(R); Berman(R); Blake(R); Bohac(R); Bonnen(R); Branch(R); Brown, Betty(R); Brown, Fred(R); Callegari(R); Campbell(R); Casteel(R); Chisum(R); Cook, Byron(R); Cook, Robby(D); Corte(R); Crabb(R); Craddick(R); Crownover(R); Davis, John(R); Dawson(R); Delisi(R); Denny(R); Driver(R); Edwards(D); Eissler(R); Elkins(R); Escobar(D); Farabee(D); Flynn(R); Frost(D); Gattis(R); Geren(R); Gonzales(D); Gonzalez Toureilles(D); Goodman(R); Goolsby(R); Griggs(R); Grusendorf(R); Haggerty(R); Hamilton(R); Hamric(R); Hardcastle(R); Harper-Brown(R); Hartnett(R); Hegar(R); Hilderbran(R); Hill(R); Hope(R); Hopson(D); Howard(R); Hughes(R); Hunter(R); Hupp(R); Isett(R); Jackson, Jim(R); Jones, Delwin(R); Keel(R); Keffer, Bill(R); Keffer, Jim(R); King, Phil(R); King, Tracy(D); Kolkhorst(R); Krusee(R); Kuempel(R); Laney(D); Laubenberg(R); Leibowitz(D); Madden(R); McCall(R); McReynolds(D); Merritt(R); Miller(R); Morrison(R); Mowery(R); Olivo(D); Orr(R); Otto(R); Paxton(R); Phillips(R); Pickett(D); Quintanilla(D); Raymond(D); Reyna(R); Riddle(R); Ritter(D); Rose(D); Seaman(R); Smith, Todd(R); Smith, Wayne(R); Solomons(R); Straus(R); Swinford(R); Talton(R); Taylor(R); Truitt(R); Turner(D); Van Arsdale(R); West, Buddy(R); Woolley(R); Zedler(R)

NAYS - 29
Allen, Alma(D); Alonzo(D); Anchia(D); Bailey(D); Burnam(D); Coleman(D); Davis, Yvonne(D); Deshotel(D); Dukes(D); Dunnam(D); Dutton(D); Farrar(D); Gallego(D); Herrero(D); Hochberg(D); Hodge(D); Martinez Fischer(D); McClendon(D); Moreno, Joe(D); Moreno, Paul(D); Naishtat(D); Noriega(D); Puente(D); Rodriguez(D); Strama(D); Thompson(D); Veasey(D); Villarreal(D); Vo(D)

PRESENT-NOT-VOTING - 5
Castro(D); Chavez(D); Giddings(D); Jones, Jesse(D); Wong(R)

ABSENT - 14
Eiland(D); Flores(D); Guillen(D); Homer(D); Luna(D); Martinez(D); Menendez(D); Nixon(R); Oliveira(D); Pena(D); Pitts(R); Smithee(R); Solis(D); Uresti(D)

Guest Post on Dallas County Democratic Party Chair Race

By Byron LaMasters

Here's an email that I received from Jake Sapiens regarding the April 22nd Grand Prairie forum for Dallas Democratic Party County Chair candidates:

On Friday I attended a candidates forum hosted by Grand Prairie (and now Irving?) Democrats at Monterey's in Downtown Grand Prairie.

Of course I came into it with a bias: I already know and respect Bruce Rothstein as a longtime Democratic grassroots activist, and on this note the forum reinforced my opinion of him as the best candidate for these reasons. He had the strongest message about message, and had more nuts and bolts understanding of what goes into the political work of a county party structure. His vision seemed the most ambitious as well as the most based in concrete knowledge. I don't forsee any on-the-job training necessary should he become the interim or even regular party chair. His longtime experience as an activist and precinct chair makes him a favorite on those values which the last party chair found herself most in conflict with. On the subject of Susan Hayes, however, he stressed the need for all party leadership both past and current to communicate with each other. "We can't afford to lose institutional knowledge." I was impressed with his intelligence and ability to move into the future. All of the candidates expressed similar sentiments and impressed me with their positive attitudes and the lack of needless dwelling on the now-publicized party conflict which brought the party to this point in the first place.

I am not unfamiliar with Walter Hofheinz; he has become a friend-in-democracy of mine through this last election cycle as I've run into him at numerous fundraising and social events. Since I had never seen him address a group like this, I previously viewed him as just a low-key and friendly guy. Nothing had particularly impressed me of his leadership potential until the forum. Now that I look up his background as a candidate and his history of convention involvement I suppose I shouldn't have been as surprised as I was at the smoothness of his communication and his confidence in working with a room of people the way he did. Of all the candidates, my opinion of him changed the most through the forum, his communication skills seeming the best. If elected, I think he could be a fast-learner and would inspire the kind of confidence that potential Democratic candidates for office would want in deciding to put their own name on the line.

Darlene Ewing came into the forum as the most unknown to me, however her connections and loyalty are not unfamiliar. I "know" her through her work in Citizens for Equality. On the issue of election protection all of the candidates were on the same page, however she had the strongest and most informed message on this. With the transition to electronic voting machines and the irregularities many have actually experienced first hand, she impressed me as the candidate who would best address ballot protection. She stressed her fundraising experience which on further research I see is considerable, and her unique skills as a family lawyer in relation to dealing with the kind of recent conflicts. Her presentation came across as upbeat and can-do.

All of the candidates seemed to know and genuinely like each other, sticking around afterwards to talk to each other, precinct chairs, and other assembled Democrats. Katy Hubener was an excellent moderator for the event, letting the candidates shine while sticking to the tough concerns of the group through pointed questions. The tone of the forum and all of the candidates inspired hope in me for the Democrats of this county.

A Defense of Sylvester Turner

By Byron LaMasters

Political consultant Marc Campos (who includes Sylvester Turner on his client list) offers a defense of Sylvester Turner:

Everyone's favorite state Dem legislator, Sylvester Turner (Houston), is getting a lot of email play of late. Late last week, word surfaced that Turner would make an appearance on a national TV talk show that is hosted by one of those looney conservatives. Someone then opined over the internet that maybe Sly was fixing to make the party switcheroo on national TV - become a GOPer. Turner's trusted media advisor then put out an email explaining Turner's scheduled TV appearance - he's supposed to talk about state legislative matters.

When you step back and look at the entire situation, there was no justification to suggest that Sylvester would jump to the other side. Yeah, there have been a couple of questionable votes or non-votes or voting machine snafus. Yeah, he's the Speaker Pro Tem, selected by a highly partisan GOP House Speaker. Yeah, he missed the bus to Ardmore - but some in the health care community are glad he stayed and worked on their funding issues as a member of the budget conference committee. All in all he has a pretty impressive Dem voting record.

Now Dem activists - particularly those from the Houston area, and particularly those from the Anglo and Latino persuasion - conveniently forget another factor, selective memory loss. When Sylvester put his impressive Dem Party credentials up for review when he ran for Mayor of the City of Houston in 2003, Anglo, Latino, and Gay/Lesbian Dems said "get lost pal". Dems failed to show up for him when he wanted help, yet these same Dems want him to act like their kind of Dem. It does not work that way. Wasn't it less than two months ago that the State Dem Party Chair released a statement praising Turner for his legislative heroics? If the Chair got it wrong on Turner, lay some wood on him. Nope, of course not. That would be called fair play.

How about starting rumors about GOPers, like did you hear that top local GOP leaders met over the weekend at a Houston downtown law office to devise a strategy for Tom DeLay to gracefully give up his leadership position? Now Dems, isn't this rumor better than Sylvester jumping ship?

I get the point here, but the very reason that many Democrats said "get lost" when Turner asked for their help in his mayoral bid is due to his serving in the Craddick leadership team. I've been tough on Sylvester Turner because of his work with the Craddick leadership, and his frequent bizarre explainations for certain votes and decisions. I will continue to be critical of Sylvester Turner and other Democrats when I see fit, but as anyone who knows me or reads this blog, would certainly know that I always save my harshest wrath for GOPers like Tom DeLay.

Abramoff Paid for DeLay Trip to London

By Byron LaMasters

It is against House rules for a registered lobbyist to pay for the travel expenses of a congressman. Jack Abramoff is a Washington lobbyist, and friend of Tom DeLay. Edwin A. Buckham is also a Washington lobbyist. Abramoff and Buckham paid for a 2000 trip to London and Scotland for Tom DeLay. The Washington Post reports:

The airfare to London and Scotland in 2000 for then-House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) was charged to an American Express card issued to Jack Abramoff, a Washington lobbyist at the center of a federal criminal and tax probe, according to two sources who know Abramoff's credit card account number and to a copy of a travel invoice displaying that number.

DeLay's expenses during the same trip for food, phone calls and other items at a golf course hotel in Scotland were billed to a different credit card also used on the trip by a second registered Washington lobbyist, Edwin A. Buckham, according to receipts documenting that portion of the trip.

House ethics rules bar lawmakers from accepting travel and related expenses from registered lobbyists. DeLay, who is now House majority leader, has said that his expenses on this trip were paid by a nonprofit organization and that the financial arrangements for it were proper. He has also said he had no way of knowing that any lobbyist might have financially supported the trip, either directly or through reimbursements to the nonprofit organization.

The Houston Chronicle has a handy breakdown of the expenses for Tom DeLay's London trip:

Details of a trip to Britain taken by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay in May 2000, based on travel and other documents:

• Business Class tickets for DeLay and his wife to London on Continental Airlines and British Airways: $6,938.70


• Golfing fees at St. Andrews: $5,000 per golfer, including DeLay.


• Deluxe room at the London Four Seasons Hotel: $790 a night for four nights.


• Private car from Heathrow airport to the hotel: $302.


• Six theater tickets: $434. (DeLay's attorney said the lawmaker did not recall attending the theater but the tickets were charged to his room)

More at the Daily DeLay.

HJR 6 On the Floor

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

The UDems GLBT Committee is up at the Capitol right now before HJR 6 starts to be debated (live feed here). Apparently the DPS in the gallery would not allow us to wear our "Hate is not a Texas Value" shirts, because it would be a "distraction" even though our plans are to remain silent and say nothing. So they are talking to some of the Reps and Senators officers to work around it since it's a rule that we havn't heard of before (and I can only imagine be related to the raucus redistricting crowds).

Texas Union not my Friend

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

I'm not happy with the Texas Union right now. University Democrats was there tonight working on making some T-shirts for our silent protest of HJR 6 (join us in the gallery Monday morning at 10 AM, look for the shirts that say "Hate is not a Texas Value" on them, and come wear one). Some manager person came over and asked us to please removed our pizza boxes, because we had ordered some from Austin's Pizza for the volunteers.

Why did we have to remove them? Because the Union apparently has some contract with Mustachio Pete's (also not a Union vendor) and can only allow their pizza to be eaten in their common dining area. We could eat it, the man said, if we ripped the tops of the boxes off with the competitor's labels on them. It was about the most ridiculous reason I can possibly think of to kick us out of the Union. Mr. Union Board Representa