Burnt Orange Report

Ben Grant Files for Lt. Gov

By Damon McCullar

Former Lege member, former judge, Ben Grant has filed for Lt. Governor. The Marshall News Messenger has the story. Here is an excerpt, full story after the jump:

Marshall resident and attorney Ben Z. Grant on Thursday announced he will be a candidate for Texas Lieutenant Governor in the March Democratic primary.

Grant, 65, a former state representative who also served 17 years as justice of the Sixth Court of Appeals in Texarkana, said he is looking forward to the statewide race.

[...]

"I realize it will be an uphill battle," Grant said, "but I want to give the people a choice."

Grant said voters across the state are unhappy with the lack of progress by the Texas Legislature on solving the state's school finance challenges.

"There has been a lot of disenfranchisement from both parties because the legislature has been unable to get together on school finance," he said. "It's not an easy task, but I feel I can work with people of both parties."

Former judge, state representative says it's time for change

|By MIKE ELSWICK, Managing Editor|

Friday, December 30, 2005

Marshall resident and attorney Ben Z. Grant on Thursday announced he will be a candidate for Texas Lieutenant Governor in the March Democratic primary.

Grant, 65, a former state representative who also served 17 years as justice of the Sixth Court of Appeals in Texarkana, said he is looking forward to the statewide race.

He shipped his filing papers Thursday to Texas Democratic Party headquarters in Austin. As of Thursday afternoon no other candidates had filed.

Incumbent Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst filed on Dec. 15 as a Republican seeking re-election. Grant said, assuming he wins the Democratic Party primary, he is looking forward to likely taking on Dewhurst next November.

"I realize it will be an uphill battle," Grant said, "but I want to give the people a choice."

Grant said voters across the state are unhappy with the lack of progress by the Texas Legislature on solving the state's school finance challenges.

"There has been a lot of disenfranchisement from both parties because the legislature has been unable to get together on school finance," he said. "It's not an easy task, but I feel I can work with people of both parties."

Grant retired from the Sixth Court of Criminal Appeals when his term ended in 2002. He served as a state representative from 1971 until 1981.

Grant was also a district judge for the 71st Judicial District Court in Harrison County and was appointed to the court of appeals in 1985 by then-Gov. Mark White. He said he spent 37 years in government, starting his career as a school teacher.

Grant has also been a weekly Sunday columnist for the Marshall News Messenger the past eight years. Those columns will cease as of this week, newspaper officials said.

He has also written plays and a novel, he said. During his teaching career in Carthage and West Texas he taught English, speech and journalism.

Dewhurst was out of state Thursday and could not be reached for comment, according to a spokeswoman from his Austin office.

Grant said he has nothing personal against Dewhurst. "I'm not faulting him altogether for the disenfranchisement," Grant said. "But I hope I can be a catalyst on the school finance issue, which is the number-one priority for state government right now."

Also unavailable was Harrison County Democratic Party Chairman Brendan Roth.

County Republican Chairman Sam Moseley said, while he wishes Grant well, he anticipates Dewhurst will continue serving as Texas Lieutenant Governor after the November election.

"Ben Grant is a good personal friend whom I admire in many ways," Moseley said Thursday afternoon. "I know this statewide campaign will be a valuable experience for him."

Moseley and Grant ran against each other in 1970 for state representative with Grant winning that race.

"Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst is also a friend, and a person of great personal skill and integrity," Moseley said. "Legislators from both parties say he serves very effectively as our state's lieutenant governor.

"I have confidence in Gov. Dewhurst, and expect him to continue serve our state honorably and well."

Grant said his legislative experience in the Texas House included serving 10 years as chairman of the House judiciary committee. He said he has received encouragement to run from Democratic Party leaders across the state, including Bob Gammage, who is running for governor.

Grant said he has known Gammage since they served in the legislature together.

"I feel strongly the Democratic Party needs good, qualified people to run," he said. "I will speak out on the issues and give the people a choice."

Grant said among the biggest obstacles to his candidacy is a lack of name recognition and lack of funding.

"I'm not rich and will have to spend time in Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and other big cities doing fund-raising," he said. Grant would not put a figure on what he estimated it will take a Democratic candidate to be viable against Dewhurst in next November's general election.

"I know it's going to take a lot to run a television campaign in the metro areas and that's about the only way you can reach a large portion of those voters," he said.

Grant was the author of a constitutional amendment that gave the courts of appeals criminal jurisdiction.

"At the time, we had only one court hearing all criminal cases in the state," he said. The amendment helped ease a backlog of criminal cases that sometimes stretched out for years in the courts.

He considers himself a lifetime student of history and the law.

Grant said this is not his first statewide run for office. He was seeking a slot on the Texas Supreme Court in 1985 when White appointed him to the Sixth Court of Appeals. Upon that appointment, Grant withdrew from the top court race.

Along with the $3,750 filing fee he sent to Austin Thursday, Grant designated his sister, Romola Greer of Hallsville, as his campaign treasurer.

Contact managing editor Mike Elswick via e-mail at: melswick@coxnews.com; or by phone at (903) 927-5962.

One Tough Independent Grandma, More Rumors Are Flying **UPDATE**

By Damon McCullar

Today, via QR:

Campaign says she is a Republican

Rumors are careening around Austin with increasing conviction that Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn has decided to run for Governor as an independent.

One rumor is that the Strayhorn Campaign had contacted the Secretary of State's office to verify that it would be open Monday to receive her notice that she intends to run as an independent. However, spokesman Scott Haywood says that they have received numerous inquiries about Monday, but most callers do not identify themselves.

For the record, the Secretary of State's office will be open Monday.

Update 4:13pm
Apparently there are rumor flying around that One Tough Grandma is considering running for Lite Gov as well. Monday is the deadline. We will know then.

SD2: Deuell's Republican Opponent Challenges Him To Debates

By Vince Leibowitz

Though it's been reported here and here that Texas Senator Dr. Bob Deuell (R-Greenville) will have Rockwall City Councilman Tim McCallum as a primary opponent in the March 7 GOP Primary, this is a bit of a new twist:

"Today I sent a message to my opponent, Bob Deuell, inviting his campaign manager to meet with mine within a week to schedule dates for two debates, one in January and a second in February," said McCallum. "The people of District 2 deserve to have my opponent and I stand before them and debate the issues that affect them each and every day. They deserve the opportunity to personally ask and to know clearly where we stand on the critical issues."

McCallum gave the above tidbit to the Tyler Morning Telegraph for his standard filing story appearing in this morning's editions.

Though McCallum didn't quite call Deuell a lapdog for the GOP's as he did in the Dallas Morning News article last month ("The incumbent has represented the party leadership well, but he hasn't represented people in District 2"), he did take a few jabs at him:

"It is time to send a truly fiscal conservative to Austin," said McCallum in an issues statement. "Our leaders passed a record-high budget, but managed to underfund schools, underfund parks and underfund roads. I am proud of my fiscal record of conservatism and I will take that to the Senate."

...

"Simply put, we have lacked the leadership that is needed to make progress on many key issues for our district and our state. The biggest disappointment was school finance. I was a member of the district's school finance panel, and we counted on our representative to use his experience and our feedback to further the cause of public schools. That did not happen."

McCallum, 32 grew up in the Austin area and graduated from Leander High School. He served as chairman of the College Republicans while a student at SWTSU, now Texas State University in San Marcos. McCallum came to Rockwall in 2000 to work at the corporate headquarters of 7-Eleven Inc. When he resigned from 7-Eleven in 2005, he was the company's youngest executive, according to the Tyler paper.

This should make for a pretty good GOP bloodbath in East Texas.
However, according to Texas Ethics Commission Reports, Deuell himself has no campaign warchest. Instead, it's all being run through a PAC, Texans for Bob Deuell, which maintained $62,679.44 in cash as of the most recent reporting period. Aside from an expense for political consulting of $500 to someone in Greenville, more consulting fees to Jim Arnold & Associates in Austin and lots of gas and parking expenditures, the most interesting expenditure is a $500 donation to "Drummers for Jesus."

And, depending upon what Deuell has raised between that report and the one due in next month, $62K is a pretty small warchest for a contested GOP Primary in SD 2, which includes all of Rockwall, Hunt, Rains, Delta, Fannin, Hopkins, Kaufman and Van Zandt counties, and parts of Dallas and Smith counties.

By contrast, Deuell spent $73,223.76 in 2000, when he faced a contested GOP Primary. And, that was in the old SD2, which included a different portion of Dallas County. He was also facing an opponent from Smith County at the time. Since McCallum has filed no reports to date, it is unknown how much he's raised or spent.

Given that Rockwall County, at least according to 2000 census figures (which don't take into account the population boom the county has experienced in recent years), has one of the smaller populations of the counties in SD2, with Dallas being the largest, it's too early to tell where, aside from the two candidates home counties, where the real 'battlegrounds' will be. Obviously, given the number of voters there, Dallas County will be a major factor for both campaigns as it is where SD2 elections are typically won and lost. However, look for Kaufman and Van Zandt Counties to be major battlegrounds, too, as both counties have good numbers of GOP primary voters.

Definately one to watch.

HD-47

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Some short notes. Outgoing State Rep. Terry Keel has filed for place 8 on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, currently held by Charles Holcomb.

Now, in addition to Valina Bolton and Jason Earle, Royce LeMoine has entered the Democratic primary for the race. I've had little word on who he is.

(Gene Kelly has filed for the US Senate seat as well, like he has in recent years, though this is the far less famous one.)

2008 National Convention

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Houston.
Dallas.
San Antonio.

All three have been invited to make a bid along with around 30 other cities. Where would each likly host the DNC? Do any of them stand a chance?

Sound off.

A House Update

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

With Rick Perry's special election just weeks away (early voting starts on Monday if you can believe it), I have the great misfortune of being out of town. I'm currently back home in Fredericksburg, enjoying the tales of local politics from Councilman Musselman, eyeing the "medium density residential housing" complex going up down the street from our house, reading the almost final draft of the City Comprehensive Plan, watching Season 7 of Stargate SG-1 on my laptop, sleeping until after 1 every day, and enjoying not being online for an entire week for the first time in years. Of course, seeing 166 unread messages in my inbox (one of 3 anyways) made me reconsider even coming back online this once to check to see how things were doing.

In any case, this update should more more about the Texas House than my own, so let's meander back there. With Andy Brown out of the HD-48 Special Election, University Democrats held an online endorsement election, the first in its history which I had the great honor of creating as my last act as the outgoing webmaster. It officially endorsed, "No Endorsement", for what use that was, not that anything would have been terribly important as most UDems members like myself won't be in town to do much for the election.

Glen Maxey, who was helping the Andy Brown campaign, is now coordinating some efforts for those who want to do what they can to help a Democrat (be it Rider or Howard) take the seat or force a February run-off which would allow us to regroup and win the race. In speaking to him, there has been an agreement reached that if either Howard or Rider wins the Special Election seat, Brown and the other Democrat would refrain from running in the March primary.

In the meantime, Donna Howard is launching TV ads which you can view here. In low turnout elections (and this one could be a record breaker for the "huh-what election" factor), name ID and some TV time can have a effect as Austinites saw in last year's city council Place 3 race where Jennifer Kim made an unexpected second place in the May election, allowing her into the run-off which she won, thanks in part to her effective use of her Firefighter's endorsement on TV.

On top of that, Howard has now been endorsed by the Texas State Teachers Association (TSTA) as well as the People for Efficient Transportation. Those Press Releases are included in the extended entry.

But the important thing to remember, is that even though this Rick Perry Special Election was designed to hurt us, we can turn the tide and just like in Minnesota, Democrats can pull through.

The following are the Press Releases for the endorsements of Howards's campaign.

The Texas State Teachers Association (TSTA) is proud to announce its endorsement of a strong supporter of public education and public school employees, Donna Howard, in the January special election for the District 48 seat vacated by resignation of Todd Baxter.

"I am honored to have Texas teachers on board this quick special election campaign," Howard said. "They work long hours and still have the energy and commitment to back a candidate who knows firsthand that no profession is more important to our future."

“We are confident that Donna Howard will be a strong voice for improving the salary and benefits of active and retired public school employees,” Haschke said.

TSTA President Haschke urged all those in District 48 who value our public schools and our children’s education to turn out to vote for Donna Howard.

"Donna Howard will fight to stop those who want to take our tax dollars away from public schools to pay for the private education of a privileged few to attend private schools, and we know she will work to provide our public schools the funding they need to give all our children an opportunity to succeed," Haschke concluded.

PETPAC

People for Efficient Transportation Political Action Committee (PET PAC) has endorsed Democrat Donna Howard for State Representative District 48 in the Special Election that begins Jan 3rd (early voting). PET PAC is a nonpartisan, grassroots group of Texans focused on keeping tolls off roads we've already paid for.

“Donna Howard understands the tremendous negative impact that freeway tolls will have on our local economy,” said Sal Costello, founder of PET PAC. “In addition to freeway tolls creating an unaccountable bureaucracy that only serves the special interests, they actually make our traffic worse, as our Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization's own numbers prove” Costello added. “PET PAC believes Donna Howard will work the hardest to keep toll tax collection booths off our public highways”

Donna Howard was born and raised in Austin and has spent her adult life working to help strengthen her community. A recognized expert on public education, Howard was an elected member of the Eanes ISD board in West Austin from 1996 to 1999. She was a cofounder of Advocates for Eanes Schools, a parent organization, and helped start the Texas Education Crisis Coalition, a grassroots group of parents and community leaders.

Based in Austin, People for Efficient Transportation Political Action Committee enhances its members’ abilities to improve accessibility, quality and cost-effectiveness of transportation for all Texans.

Contact:
Sal Costello
Founder of People for Efficient Transportation PAC

Sexton on Talton

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Though Texas blogs mentioned her intentions as far back as June, Janette Sexton has officially filed against Republican Robert Talton in HD-144 over in the Houston area. Talton, infamous this past session for trying to tear foster kids out of their foster homes if their foster parents happened to be a same gender couple, deserves to become the latest GOP icon to fall victim to a Run, Everywhere strategy.

Janette's profile on this Democracy for Houston page is reflective of why I am thankful for what the Howard Dean campaign has left in it's wake. The conversion of his campaign into Democracy for America has enabled new political activists, regular Texans, Virginians, Californians, and beyond to take hold of their individual accomplishments, abilities, and idealism and translate that into campaigns and change, not only for the Democratic Party, but for Democracy itself. It's allowing us to fulfill the concept of Run, Everywhere, which is not only needed for rebuilding our state party, but for giving voters a choice and a chance to organize and reclaim their government.

With that in mind, as the filing period draws to a close on January 2, I can only hope that our state party helps to fill out that statewide ticket, which is looking pretty slim right now. More on that soon enough.

BORed: My Apologies

By Matt Hardigree

Sometimes you make mistakes. In politics, you're always making mistakes. But the biggest mistake of all, might be to not admit your mistakes. This is the lesson of Nixon, of Clinton and, perhaps, of Hardigree.

This is going to be all over the news, so I thought I should address this now. I made a call to Kinky's right-hand man Little Jewford and told him I thought he couldn't win the governor's race and should run for agricultural commissioner instead.

First, let me premise this by saying that this isn't in anyway connected with any of the campaigns that I'm working with. Second, let me say that Little Jewford and I are old friends and we've done lots of charity work in the past. So, I didn't think this was a big deal. Honestly.

I just told him what I felt to be the truth. I told him the words of that great Texan, Sam Rayburn (the longest serving and arguably most successful Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives in history) when he said: "Any Jackass can kick down a barn, but it takes a carpenter to build one." I said that we need men of action, not men with action figures.

I also thought that Agricultural commissioner was a better fit for a man with his own line of salsa. I think that's true. He reminds me of a young Jim Hightower. Jim Hightower is America's favorite populist and Kinky is easily Texas' favorite Jew.

I also want to mention a call I made to Shirley Schmidt, chair of the Burnet County Democratic Party, who I told should run for Lt. Governor. I said that there could be lots of money for someone pursuing that seat. I don't remember a specific number, let's just say somewhere between $1.0 and $400.0 million dollars. Which I think is true.

So, there it is. I made a mistake. It's not my place and it looks suspicious. But, I'm apologizing. That's what is important. I mean, let's be honest. What the hell was I thinking? What did I think would happen? It's hilarious, if you think about it.

Cruel Intentions

By Jim Dallas

"Jeebus Alito's a fascist" is Atrios's response to this recent New York Times editorial which asserts, in part, that:

In a second memo released yesterday, Judge Alito made another bald proposal for grabbing power for the president. He said that when the president signed bills into law, he should make a "signing statement" about what the law means. By doing so, Judge Alito hoped the president could shift courts' focus away from "legislative intent" - a well-established part of interpreting the meaning of a statute - toward what he called "the President's intent."

In the memo, Judge Alito noted that one problem was the effect these signing statements would have on Congressional relations. They would "not be warmly welcomed by Congress," he predicted, because of the "novelty of the procedure" and "the potential increase of presidential power."

Frankly, Atrios is overreacting; even at its worst, consolidating power in the presidency is more monarchism than fascism (and I might as well say now that, while I disagree with Judge Alito and probably wouldn't vote to confirm if I were a senator, he's certainly smart, qualified, and not a fascist).

More importantly, though, I think that the discussion raised by Alito's memo is an important discussion that people (not just lawyers) ought to be having. I'll explain why below the fold.

I think most appellate judges - and not just conservative "originalists" - will tell you that looking at the intentions of the founding fathers and subsequent law-givers is an important undertaking when interpreting the Constitution or a statute. This is spurs from a common-law tendency to attempt to read documents as their authors meant them. At least until the 19th century contracts were interpreted (kindasorta) through the lens of subjective intent; the buzzword today is "objective intent". Wills are treated in a similar way. There is pretty much an agreement among most people that laws are not just made up on the spot.

But that's where the agreement breaks down, at least with statutes, because the question is - whose intent should matter? The bill author? The whole Congress? The mark-up committee? Legislative intent is difficult to figure out. Some judges - for example Justice Breyer - will give weight to conference committee reports, while others - for example Justice Scalia - won't. And so while there tends to be an agreement that intent matters, there are many different yardsticks for assessing it.

The New York Times reports that Judge Alito once preferred - and may still prefer - to give the President's interpretation weight. I presume this position is rooted in the logic that "the buck stops there." Rather than having 535 opinions to sort through, a presidentialist would only worry about one - the president's. Already, some folks will give at least a little weight to presidential signing statements. The controversy seems to be how much weight to give it.

I personally think that giving too much weight to the president would be a mistake - and not just because I have an instinctive pro-Congress bias (like most liberals, I think, when it comes down to questions of presidential versus congressional prerogative). The problem with relying on the president is that he (or she) doesn't have to give any opinions at all. Many presidents - like George W. Bush - are basically just rubber stamps, rarely ever vetoing bills, and often giving scarce attention to the contents of bills that reach his desk. To be sure, many members of Congress don't read the bills they vote on. But at least they're supposed to have an opinion (or intent) about them.

The reason why I say this is something everyone should consider is because it really is a question about who writes history. As Orwell wrote, he who controls the past controls the future. Ultimately, judges must decide which history (or histories) should be given controlling weight. All too often I think our current president has been willing to doctor history for political purposes (Members of congress do it too, I'll concede, but at least you get both sides of the story when reading the Congressional Record). Do you really want the judiciary relying heavily on politically-sanitized history? I don't.

Merry Christmas!

By Phillip Martin

Hope everyone is enjoying time with family and friends. I'm jumping the gun on this post, I know -- but I'm about to head off to Church, and then I'm taking a break from the computer for the weekend.

It was a gorgeous 71 degrees here in Austin today. Leave some holiday cheer below, and remember -- just a little more than 10 days until the Rose Bowl!

Here's a little Santa-tracking for you. Enjoy!

What is One-Tough Grandma Up To? **Update**

By Damon McCullar

Well, it's a little under two weeks until the filing deadline and it seems that One Tough Grandma is have an identity crisis. With her poll number in the Republican primary in the sub-basement, it seems to me that Carol Four-Names is shopping around for a way to run for Governor.

First, as noted here at BOR she floated a poll about running as an Independent.

Now it seems as if she is trying clear the field in the Democratic Primary to run as a Democrat. From the AAS:

A top aide to Republican gubernatorial candidate Carole Keeton Strayhorn called Democratic candidate Chris Bell's wife last week and suggested that Bell drop out of the governor's race and instead run for comptroller.

Strayhorn spokesman Mark Sanders said he told Alison Bell that "there would be support for him" if Chris Bell ran to succeed Strayhorn as comptroller. Sanders said that he and Alison Bell have known each other since they worked on a campaign together 15 years ago and that he wanted to advise his longtime friends that they could not win the governor's race.

"I made this call to Alison on my own out of a sense of concern for them and their family," Sanders said. "And I did not make this call in reference in any way to the comptroller's gubernatorial campaign."

To which Chris Bell said he will not run for comptroller and that there was no mention in his wife's conversation with Sanders of Strayhorn running as a Democrat.

His campaign responded on their blog with three things that the campaign is taking away from the story:

First and foremost, let me say emphatically and unequivocally that Chris is not going anywhere. Backroom maneuvering and wink-and-a-smile promises of “unnamed” financial support for a downballot run may get the chattering classes buzzing, but Chris has no interest at all in any race but this one. He’s running for governor because he’s fed up with Rick Perry’s Reign of Error and believes that our best chance to change the direction of our state is to start at the top. Chris is a fighter, and he’s not backing down one inch on this one.

Second, it’s worth noting that while One Tough Grandma was fearless enough to take on Rick Perry among Republican primary voters, she’s apparently frightened enough of Chris Bell’s strength among Democrats to want him out of the picture before considering a switch. It’s a little more validation that Chris’s optimistic New Mainstream message is resonating with Democrats across the state who are tired of Rick Perry’s failures and have no patience for candidates running as “Rick Perry lite.”

Third, it warrants mentioning that Strayhorn’s campaign, which has been floundering for months, appears increasingly desperate as we approach the Jan 2 filing deadline. Rick Perry’s continued low 40’s approval numbers are proof that there’s a clear majority out there ready to fire him next November, and its becoming just as clear that voters looking for an alternative to Perry need to start looking past Carole Strayhorn.

Now, I realize that Mark Sanders and Alison Bell are friends that go back fifteen years and Mr. Sanders says that he was only looking out for the welfare of his friend. I might believe that if the Independent poll wasn't floated two weeks ago. I think that the Strayhorn Campaign has gotten the memo that they won't win the Republican Primary and is now shopping around for a place to run. If that means switching parties again, then so be it. I really don't think Strayhorn would do well as a Democrat again. Here's a rundown of where she has stood in the past:

- She says she is “pleased and proud to be a Republican” and “I consider myself to be a Republican and feel philosophically and personally comfortable with the GOP”
- She calls us the “Democrat Party.” If she can’t get the name right, then she has no right to the name.
- Campaigned for Claytie Williams against Ann Richards, even defending him when he joked about rape
- Was the deciding vote on the Legislative Redistricting Board that passed the map that put Tom Craddick in the Speaker’s Chair (Laney and Ratliff voted no, Perry and Dewhurst voted yes)
- When she switched parties and lost a ton of weight, she joked “It just goes to show you that inside every fat Democrat, there’s a skinny Republican trying to get out”
- She’s pro-life
- She’s never been afraid to take on Rick Perry as a Republican, but it seems she wants to clear the field in the Democratic Primary because she's scared to take on Chris Bell among Democrats.

I guess we will find out exactly what her intentions are after the Christmas holiday. She only has seven working days left to file. I've given you a few facts to chew on, see if you can dig up some more and let me know how would you feel if Strayhorn was to run as a Democrat? How do you think it would influence the primary? Does she still have enough following in the Democratic Party to be effective? Let's hear it!

**Update** 10:16

Kuff and Perry Vs The World have some interesting posts on this same subject.

House Slashes Patriot Act Extention **Update**

By Damon McCullar

As I'm sure that you are aware of, the Patriot Act renewal passed the Senate yesterday. The renewal was for six months so that lawmakers could sort out differences on violations of civil liberties. Well, when the measure when to the House of Representatives, they only approved a month extension. Now I'm fuzzy on the rules, but I think that the bill has to either go back to the Senate for approval or to conference committee to work out the differences.

Also in Congressional news, the ANWR amendment (drilling in ANWR) that was attached to the Defense Appropriations Bill was removed after the Republican leadership couldn't drum up enough votes to end debate (i.e. filibuster). Once the ANWR amendment was removed, the Defense Appropriations Bill was approved unanimously on voice vote. Alaska Senator Ted Stevens has been trying to get this measure passed for twenty-five years! In his latest attempt, he did everything but get down on his knees an beg senators to vote for it. And of all the underhanded tricks the Republican leadership has played, labeling a vote against the Defense Appropriations Bill with the ANWR Amendment as a vote against the troops is about as low as I have seen them stoop.

And finally, yesterday the Senate passed a budget deficit reducing bill that reduced the amount of money set aside for college loans and slashed funding for programs for the poor. The Vice-president had to come forth from his undisclosed location to cast the tie-breaking vote.

**Update** 10:30pm

The Senate met for a few hours today and approved the one month extention that the House had preiously approved.

David Van Os: "The Constitutional Crisis"

By Damon McCullar

This is a press release I received via email from David Van Os, candidate for Attorney General. The thing that I thought was the most interesting about it was the precedents that he sited in the footnotes (case precedent after the jump). For your reading pleasure:

George W. Bush has plunged the country into the kind of Constitutional crisis that was resolved in 1974 by the issuance of articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon and Nixon’s subsequent resignation. Make no mistake about it – the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution covers telephone communications, and warrants are required for wiretaps. (See for example, Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 [1967]*). Federal judges can and do quickly issue warrants authorizing wiretaps whenever the government shows the need. George W. Bush cannot and does not claim that the judges have been stingy with such warrants; rather he claims that the legal and constitutional requirements simply do not apply to him. As if that were not bad enough, he also claims the authority to spy on peaceable American citizens who are engaging in traditional American freedom of speech and assembly. Make no mistake about this – Bush’s claim of the authority to wiretap Americans’ telephones without warrants and to spy on peaceful First Amendment activities is in brazen defiance of the Constitution.

George W. Bush’s arrogant claim that the “executive power” referenced in Article II of the Constitution authorizes him to override the First and Fourth Amendments is a declaration of war against the very notion of a Constitution, because if his claim wins out, then there are no longer any limits on what the chief executive can do, and we will be living under dictatorship instead of in a democracy. To George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Alberto Gonzalez, the Constitutional rights and liberties of Americans can be wiped away by a president’s executive decree – my dear friends and fellow Texans, a Bill of Rights that exists only at the sufferance of executive power is not a Bill of Rights at all, and an executive who claims such power is no longer the executor of Constitutional government, but has become by such actions an unconstitutional usurper. My words are provocative, because the situation is provocative when the U.S. president makes open war on the Bill of Rights that so many fearless American patriots sacrificed so much to preserve, protect and defend.

If Bush’s claim of the power to wiretap the telephone communications of Americans without warrants and to spy on peaceful American citizens is not blocked now, he will have prevailed in claiming that he can overrule our Bill of Rights by executive decree. There is no tomorrow on this one. There is no middle ground on this, no room for normal protocols. George W. Bush has declared that he has been wiretapping Americans without warrants, that he has the power to do so, and that he is going to continue to do so. He has declared that he is going to continue to spy on Americans’ freedom of speech and assembly. Bush has thrown down the gauntlet, and he has dared the people to pick it up.

A Texas Attorney General who understood that his job was to be the people’s lawyer would pick up that gauntlet. The Bill of Rights belongs just as much to the people of Texas as it does to anyone else in America. As Texas Attorney General I will fulfill my duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, by fighting on behalf of Texans with every means and resource at my disposal against any and all such anti-constitutional federal usurpations. For example, I would move swiftly into the courts as the lawyer for the people of Texas to challenge the Bushite government’s defiance of the Bill of Rights and have their actions declared unconstitutional. The current Texas Attorney General clearly will not challenge them, since he is a Bushite mouthpiece and will not bite the hand of the master who appointed him to statewide Texas public office. Probably no other Texas public official will challenge them either; but under the Texas Constitution it is the Attorney General, more than other state office-holder, whom the people of Texas most depend upon to fight for their Constitutional rights and liberties; and I will do so against all comers.

*United States Supreme Court Justice Tom Clark in Berger v. New York (1967): “They [previous Supreme Court decisions] found ‘conversation’ was within the Fourth Amendment’s protections, and that the use of electronic devices to capture it was a ‘search’ within the meaning of the Amendment, and we so hold. …The purpose of the probable cause requirement of the Fourth Amendment [is] to keep the state out of constitutionally protected areas until it has reason to believe that a specific crime has been or is being committed.” (Justice Tom Clark was from Texas.) Justice Louis Brandeis, 77 years ago in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928): “The progress of science in furnishing the government with means of espionage is not likely to stop with wire tapping. Ways may some day be developed by which the government, without removing papers from secret drawers, can reproduce them in court, and by which it will be enabled to expose to a jury the most intimate occurrences of the home. …As means of espionage, writs of assistance and general warrants [two examples of British abuse that contributed to the American Revolution] are but puny instruments of tyranny and oppression when compared with wire tapping. …The makers of our Constitution…conferred, as against the government, the right to be left alone – the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment.”

All Tom DeLay Wants For Christmas...

By Damon McCullar

...is his majority leader office back. Unfortunatly, it looks as if he won't qualify for the job when elections come around in January. It won't be because his attorney's aren't trying.

From the AAS:

Time may have run out on U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay's quest to be tried on money-laundering charges before Congress begins a new term in late January.

The Third Court of Appeals in Austin refused Thursday to intervene immediately in DeLay's request to be tried quickly on the first-degree felony charge. The appellate court also denied DeLay's request to speed up the exchange of legal briefs on whether DeLay can get a quick trial.

The decision means DeLay's trial might be postponed for weeks, if not months, and Congress likely will begin a new term in late January without the Sugar Land Republican reclaiming the U.S. House majority leader post.

Of course if the Court of Appeals does take the extraordinary step of dismissing all the charges against DeLay, it may be all for naught. Rumor has it that Abramoff is trying to cut a deal with the Justice Dept. There's no telling what kind of dirt he has gainst DeLay and company.

Armbrister Not Running in 2006

By Damon McCullar

Via The Victoria Advocate:

Rep. Ana Hernandez Sworn Into Office

By Phillip Martin

In a ceremony on the House floor this afternoon, Ana Hernandez was sworn into the office of State Representative of District 143. Rep. Hernandez replaces the seat vacated by the unexpected death of Rep. Joe Moreno back in May.

Rep. Hernandez was sworn in by Rep. Paul Moreno (D - El Paso), a fellow Mexican-American and senior member of the House of Representatives. During her brief speech, Rep. Hernandez told the story of how, after she won the special election a few weeks ago, she drove around the district and thought of all the people she now represents, and how eager she is to begin fighting for their families and their futures. She thanked her supporters -- many of whom joined her in attendance, as well as many House Democrats -- and promised to do her best for her district.

On behalf of the BOR crew, I'd like to wish Rep. Hernandez all the best as she begins her work representing House District 143.

Federal Judge Rules Intelligent Design Out of the Classroom

By Damon McCullar

A federal judge today ruled that a statement read before studying the theory of evolution in the Dover, PA school system is unconstitutional.

From the Washington Post:

In his ruling today, Jones said several members of the Dover Area School Board repeatedly lied during the trial to cover their motives for promoting intelligent design even as they professed religious beliefs, the Associated Press reported.

I'm impressed. I was sure that this dressing up of creationism would be able to sneak it's way into the classroom. I guess over the years I've become a bit of a cynic when it comes to the religious right. It just seemed to me that they were a overpowering influence in our country that was insurmountable. I guess they aren't as powerful as I figured. Maybe brighter days are ahead.

New from Jib Jab: 2-0-5

By Damon McCullar

From the creators of This Land, It's Good To Be in DC, Second Term and Big Box Mart comes a year in review politcal parody, 2-0-5. Check it out it's worth a few chuckles.

DeLay has been delayed.

By Damon McCullar

Judge Priest today decided to cancel a December 27th trial until Travis County DA Ronnie Earle's appeal of the dismissal of the Conspiracy to Violate Campaign Law has been decided.

Via QR:

Judge Pat Priest has posted, "The record on appeal will be filed with the Third Court of Appeals in Austin on Monday, 12/19/05. I will be without jurisdiction in the matter until that court has acted upon the state's appeal. The hearings previously scheduled for 12/27/05 are canceled.I will set no other hearings until the appellate court has acted."

In other words, hearings on prosecutorial misconduct and venue will be delayed until sometime in January. If the case survives the hearings, the actual trial would probably not begin until the end of January at the earliest.

Congressional Republicans are expected to hold the Majority Leader position open for Delay until late January or early February.

I don't know when leadership elections are held in the House, but it looks like there's a good chance that Rep. DeLay won't be eligible when they do come around.

President Bush Bashes NY Times

By Phillip Martin

In a televised address, President Bush said that the New York Times article that described the secret authorization of wiretapping and eavesdropping should not have been released, and that sharing this information with the public "puts our citizens at risk."

From the transcript of his remarks:

This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security. Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, our friends and allies.

Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country.

The secret program described in the Times article differs from wiretapping that is legal under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978. That act allows for a secret court to receive and approve warrants that seek to gather information for any person or persons that could be a threat to national security. A recent FISA report showed that, in the past three years, the issuance and approval for such warrants has more than doubled from previous years. According to the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC):

There were 1758 applications for secret surveillance in 2004, an all-time high. None of the applications for secret suveillance warrants were denied. In 2004, as in 2003, more secret surveillance warrants were granted than federal wiretap warrants, which have more stringent standards. A report on federal wiretapm warrants in 2004 reveals that state and federal courts authorized 1,710 interceptions in 2004, an increase of 19 percent over 2003 and more than in any previous year. Federal officials made an all-time high 730 intercept applications in 2004, a 26 percent increase over 2003.

The secret program President Bush has reauthorized 30 times, however, allows for the covert eavesdropping on any domestic communication without court-approved warrants. This change in intelligence gathering policy surprised many Senators and Congressmen -- especially since FISA already allows for immediate, 72-hour emergency wiretapping without court approval. Should an emergency come up immediately, the National Security Agency can eavesdrop on any person for three days, so long as they receive the warrant after the three days. Considering the fact that not a single warrant was been denied in 2004, it seems to some that existing law would be more than sufficient for any national security purposes.

President Bush didn't explicitly detail why there was a need to change the intelligence gathering policy, simply stating that the secret program "is crucial to saving American lives."

Partially due to the contents of the controversial NY Times article, the Patriot Act was not approved by the Senate on Friday. President Bush was not pleased with the Senate's delay, saying:

A minority of senators filibustered to block the renewal of the Patriot Act when it came up for a vote yesterday. That decision is irresponsible, and it endangers the lives of our citizens. The senators who are filibustering must stop their delaying tactics, and the Senate must vote to reauthorize the Patriot Act. In the war on terror, we cannot afford to be without this law for a single moment.

Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania), who is Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said that his committee plans to investigate the matter. In the mean time, the Patrioat Act remains in the Senate, and President Bush plans to continue reauthorizing his secret eavesdropping program as long as is necessary.

No word yet on whether or not the New York Times story was in fact illegal, as President Bush suggested.

The Courage to Be a Progressive Patriot

By Andrea Meyer

I am pleased to announce that John Courage, running against Lamar Smith in CD 21, has been elected as the winner of the Progressive Patriots Fund. Here is an excerpt of the e-mail I received with the announcement in the extended entry, as I am having issues including part of the e-mail.

Thanks to all who voted, and many felicitations to Mr. Courage!

I am excited to announce that you have chosen John Courage to be our first Progressive Patriot. John is a terrific candidate running in the Texas 21st. He's running to protect social security from privatization, to bring affordable health care to all Americans, and to make our country a leader in alternative energy. He's a veteran who wants to bring our troops home safely, and a teacher who will work to improve public education. I'm proud to call John Courage a Progressive Patriot, and based on your recommendation we will contribute $5,000 to his campaign for Congress. You can find out more about John at his website.

With so many deserving candidates competing in this online voting event, it is difficult to support only the candidates receiving the most votes, so we have also decided to make smaller contributions to each of the other ten candidates. I hope that you will also consider financially supporting these great candidates in the future.

Because of the overwhelming response to this event, we hope to do similar events several times over the coming year. There are many other strong democratic candidates running in 2006 who deserve our support. I am committed to doing everything I can to help elect more democrats across the country, but I need your financial help if we are to be effective. Please consider making a contribution today, so that we may continue to help to support these candidates through the Progressive Patriots Fund."

http://www.progressivepatriotsfund.com/morepatriots

Andy Brown is Gearing Up for HD 48 Primary

By Katie Naranjo

Andy Brown, already a candidate for the March 7, 2006, Democratic primary, will not run in the January special election to fill the House District 48 seat.

“Today, the Court affirmed a ruling by the Secretary of State that I disagree with but accept. However, I concede nothing to Rick Perry or Ben Bentzin now, or in the future. I”ll continue to be a voice for education,ethics and insurance reform in District 48.”

“I am especially grateful to the Central Austin Democrats for their recent endorsement, and will continue to do everything possible to make sure a Democrat wins District 48,” said Brown.

Chris Bell Rails Against Gov. Perry's Executive Order to Enhance College Readiness Efforts

By Damon McCullar

Apparently Gov. Perry has just noticed that there is a problem with the the readiness of our high school students entering college. According to his press release, the new executive order will:

* A new system of college readiness indicators for every high school, including a requirement that schools report the number of graduates who have to take remedial courses when they get to college,
* Voluntary end-of-course assessments for technology-related subjects like math and science to more accurately measure student progress,
* An electronic academic records system to facilitate the transfer of student transcripts between school districts and between high schools and colleges. This will reduce paperwork requirements and make it easier for students to apply to multiple colleges at once,
* Summer residential programs at Texas colleges and universities for secondary students who excel to provide enhanced learning opportunities, and
* A pilot program to pay the cost of college entrance exams for economically disadvantaged students.

These programs will cost an estimated four million dollars. Former Congressman and Gubernatorial Candidate Chris Bell responded by saying:

“It took Rick Perry five years to figure out that college readiness is a growing problem, but what’s he’s proposing doesn’t address the real cause. Kids are leaving high school less prepared for a higher education under Rick Perry’s administration because high-stakes testing has corrupted the curriculum and driven teachers from the profession. What we need to get our kids ready for college are higher teacher salaries, uncensored textbooks, and safe classrooms where our kids can learn something more valuable than just how to take yet another standardized test.”

Some statistics on college readiness of Texas high school students:

In 1993, the year high-stakes testing was introduced, 78 % of the graduating high school seniors who took the state’s college readiness test (the TASP exam) passed all 3 sections. By 2002, that rate had plummeted to below 22 %.

Texas ranks 3rd from the bottom in average SAT scores. The 995 average score for Texas students in 2005 was more than 30 points below the national mean.

It's all well and good the Governor wants to fix this "emergent" problem, but what happens when these students are all ready to enter college and then get smacked with a $3600 bill for tuition and fees. That's no joke folks, that's how much I pay to take more than 12 semester hours (flat rate tuition plan) in the College of Natural Sciences at the University of Texas at Austin. Earlier this semester, the Advisory Board recommended hiking tuition by almost 10% over the next two years. The recommendation was for a 5.5% increase for the 2006-2007 academic year and then a 3.9% hike the year after. Chris Bell has also spoke out on this by saying that tuition deregulation has been a total failure and that we should but the genie back in the bottle on this issue.

Ronnie Earle Fights Back

By Damon McCullar

Remember those "Ronnie Earle is a partisian attack dog" ads? Well, according to Drudge Report, Earle as suboneaed two officals at the Free Enterprise Fund.

From Drudge:

Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle has subpoenaed two officials at the Free Enterprise Fund in connection with ads the conservative group has run criticizing him for his indictment of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.). The ads attacked Earle, who has a history of indicting his political enemies in both parties, comparing him to an attack dog.

The draft subpoena served to the organization demands that FEF communications director Todd Schorle and executive director O'Brien Murray testify in Texas at DeLay's change of venue hearing on Dec. 27 -- the Tuesday after Christmas.

In the subpoena, Earle also demands "any and all documentation regarding the advertisements that have been produced or paid for by the Free Enterprise Fund.

Senate Blocks Renewal of Expiring Provisions of the USA Patriot Act

By Damon McCullar

According to Reuters, the Senate has block renewal of the expiring provisions of the USA Patriot Act On a vote of 52-47, the resolution fell 8 votes short of the the 60 needed to end debate and bring the measure to a vote.

Senate Democratic and Republican foes of the proposed renewal said the law could be swiftly reauthorized if lawmakers agreed to better balance national security with civil liberties.

"None of us wants it to expire, and those who threaten to let it expire rather than fix it are playing a dangerous game," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat.

Proponents of the legislation warned that much of sweeping anti-terror law was to expire at the end of the month, and if it did, the nation could be placed at increased risk.

"We have a clear choice before us today: Do we advance against terrorism to make America safer or do we retreat," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, said shortly before the vote.

It seems that the tide is turning in at least one of our houses of Congress. It's ironic that "The People's House", otherwise known as the House of Representatives can't do the will of the people but the Senate can. Hopefully that will change in November.

David Van Os Blasts AG Abbott on Redistricting

By Damon McCullar

In a press release today, David Van Os took Attorney General Greg Abbott to task on his role in the on going redistricting dispute.

From the press release:

“A Texas Attorney General who understood that his job was to be the People's Lawyer would have long ago sided with the people rather than with the Republican Party political bosses when it came to Texas redistricting. Greg Abbott may be concerned that Texans will learn the truth about their Attorney General’s complicity with the rest of the Republican Party’s power-grabbing political hacks in their arrogant pursuit of one-party rule – and well he should be.”

David Van Os

The complete press release is after the jump.

Van Os’s Complete Statement:

“When he got the news that the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to hear arguments in the Texas redistricting case, Bushite Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott quickly issued a press release blithely stating that it was ‘not surprising’ for the Supreme Court to hear arguments on the case and that he expects the Court will find the Texas redistricting plan to be ‘wholly constitutional.’

”First of all, every lawyer worth his salt knows that the U.S. Supreme Court only rarely grants review in cases appealed to it. Putting aside the fact that his statement is misleading, one must wonder why Greg Abbott felt it necessary to editorialize at all. Is he perhaps feeling defensive about the role he played as Texas Attorney General in giving his legal blessing to Tom DeLay’s power grab? Could he be feeling defensive about the fact that he was not successful in trying to persuade the Supreme Court to summarily affirm the lower court's decision without hearing argument? Or is he perhaps defensive because the professional legal staff in the U.S. Department of Justice concluded that the Texas redistricting was illegal?

”Remember, this is the same Greg Abbott who tried to convince the Texas courts they had no authority to take action over an unconstitutional school finance system. Even the all-Republican Texas Supreme Court had no stomach for that stellar argument.

”A Texas Attorney General who understood that his job was to be the People's Lawyer would have long ago sided with the people rather than with the Republican Party political bosses when it came to Texas redistricting. Greg Abbott may be concerned that Texans will learn the truth about their Attorney General’s complicity with the rest of the Republican Party’s power-grabbing political hacks in their arrogant pursuit of one-party rule – and well he should be.”

Wiktory!

By Jim Dallas

This is either bad news for Britannica or good news for Wikipedia. For the record, I currently have Weird Al's "Everything You Know is Wrong" stuck in mind.

Kinky Ads on TV

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

I was at Kerbey Lane the other night, chatting with University Democrat's President Alex Hunt, President-Elect Brandon Chicotsky, and Austin consultant Glen Maxey about the District 48 race, state student strategies, and University Democrats, when I saw one of the new Kinky TV ads I had received an e-mail about Monday.

Running in Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio, Austin and El Paso (what's the price tag on that I'd like to know), they feature Kinky, or rather, his 13-inch action figure responding to Press Questions.

You can watch the 3 ads online here. If you want to catch one of the ads, they will be running on the following programs.

Update: From the comments, a very good point...

I had to do a check to find out that Friedman's campaign manager is former Senator Dean Barkley (IP-MN). When Jesse Ventura ran for Governor in 1998, North Woods Advertising released ads with a Jesse Ventura action figure.

In Politics, everything old is new again.

Ellen
Oprah
Meet the Press
Face the Nation
Nightline
Today Show
GMA
Saturday Night Live
Early and late news shows
Jimmy Kimmel
Letterman
Leno
Entertainment Tonight
Tyra Banks
Daytime soaps
Dr. Phil
Friends
CSI
Simpsons
King of the Hill
Everybody Loves Raymond
Frasier
Seinfeld
Fear Factor
Bernie Mac
That 70s Show
Malcolm in the Middle
CNN Headline News

HD 48 Update

By Damon McCullar

Andy Brown petitioned a week or so ago to run in the HD 48 special election even though he did not meet the one-year residency requirement.

Via QR:

Democratic candidate for House District 48 Andy Brown responded to the Secretary of State’s denial of a place on the special election ballot with a federal lawsuit challenging the residency requirement in a special election.

Brown moved to the district in May to meet the one-year residency requirement for the November general election. Abruptly, state Rep. Todd Baxter (R-Austin) resigned, effective Nov. 1. Unsuccessful GOP Senate candidate Ben Bentzin’s name quickly circulated as the likely Republican candidate. Gov. Rick Perry called for a special election on Jan. 17.

Stay tuned for further developments.

Bob Gammage Files for Governor

By Damon McCullar

Well folks, we now have a primary race on our hands. Bob Gammage filed for governor of the state of Texas today. In a statement on his website, Mr. Gammage says "This campaign is about reform. It is about opening state policy-making to public scrutiny. It is about restoring the public trust." He goes on to say that "Today we have a governor who is just a cog in that machine. Rick Perry's been a weak governor with a failed record. He totally lacks the will and the ability to reform a system that produced him." He specifically attacks Gov. Perry for his ties to special interest and lack of action on school finance:

After two years of talk and no action, Rick Perry finally decided to tackle the most important issue facing Texas -- the public school finance mess. So what did he do? He went on a cruise. He sailed the Caribbean on a ritzy yacht with a bunch of rich supporters and came back with a school finance plan that would be good for their special interests---and to hell with everybody else.

Chris Bell Announces Initiatives To Reduce Teen Pregnancy, Number of Abortions in State

By Damon McCullar

Last night, while speaking to the Democratic Women of New Braunfels, Chris Bell announced his strategy to take on the teen pregnancy rate in Texas and offered policy to reduce the number of abortions in the state. Texas is second only to Mississippi in the number of teen pregnancies reported. From the speech:

In his speech, Bell, who had a 100% NARAL rating for his voting in Congress, said that "I know a lot of people who are pro-choice, and I know a lot of people who call themselves pro-life. But I don’t know anyone who is pro-abortion. Nobody likes abortion. We’re all comfortable saying that abortion should be safe, legal and rare, but Democrats should not be shy about saying just how rare we think abortion should be." He went on to say that "the way we start to do that (reduce abortions) is by finding the moral courage to give our kids the age-appropriate, medically accurate information they need to not get pregnant in the first place." Finally he attacked Perry's abstinence only sex ed program saying "In fact, one study showed that Texas high-schoolers were more sexually active after undergoing Rick Perry’s sex ed, which is an abstinence-only approach." And then blasting Perry for vetoing a Medicare waiver bill in 2001:

Vote for Courage

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

This is it! Thanks to your help, John is in the lead for the Feingold Progressive Patriot Poll.

The Progressive Patriot Award is an online competition between 11 Congressional candidates put on by the Progressive Patriots Fund (Senator Feingold's PAC) , and comes in the form of $5,000 for the campaign (to be spent in TEXAS) and a little bit of nice national recognition.

John currently leads Colleen Rowley of Minnesota by 3 points, 23%-20%!

Voting ends at MIDNIGHT, DECEMBER 14!

If you have not yet voted, please do so by clicking here.

Latest Developments in the DeLay Case

By Damon McCullar

Via QR:

Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle has sent notice to the court that he will appeal Judge Pat Priest's decision to quash the charge that Congressman Tom Delay conspired to violate the Texas Election Code. He is seeking a stay on any trial pending the outcome of the appeal.

So it looks like the trial will drag out through the leadership elections at the beginning of next year. Can't say I don't blame Earle. Who really likes being called a partisan attack dog?

Also via QR:

Today, the Travis County District Attorney issued a subpoena for records and depositions from former Tom Delay business associate Robert Blankenship.

According to a 1999 Washington Post story, "Robert Blankenship, a former DeLay business partner, and his attorney, Gerald P. DeNisco, said in interviews yesterday that it is hypocritical for the House majority whip to attack Clinton's integrity given what they said were the congressman's own evasions and misstatements in a civil deposition five years ago.

"DeLay denied under oath in a 1994 deposition for a lawsuit brought by Blankenship that he was head of Albo Pest Control Co. He reported to Congress at the same time that he was chairman of the firm, according to a recent report in the New Republic.

"The Hill newspaper reported yesterday that an examination of other documents in the court case indicate that DeLay made other misstatements about the amount of money he was receiving from the company and also about the amount of speaking fees he collected in the late 1980s.

"DeLay declined to address the reported discrepancies. His spokesman, Michael Scanlon, said: "It's pretty obvious that there are people who are doing everything they can to make Tom DeLay look bad. There's more to this story than meets the eye. And it will become apparent in the future. In the meanwhile, we choose to sacrifice the public relations aspect for the eventual truth."

And finally via CNN:

District Attorney Ronnie Earle issued subpoenas late Monday afternoon for California businessmen Brent Wilkes and Max Gelwix, records of Perfect Wave Technologies LLC, Wilkes Corp. and ADCS Inc. in connection with a contribution to a fundraising committee at the center of the investigation that led to DeLay's indictment on money laundering charges.

Perfect Wave contributed $15,000 in September 20, 2002 to Texans for a Republican Majority, a fundraising committee founded by DeLay, R-Texas.

So what does it mean that Ronnie Earle has subpoenaed all these records? The first set of documents seems to be evidence against Rep. DeLay's character. The second set of records may be used to establish the money trail from DeLay to TRMPAC to the RNC and then back to the Texas Republican Party. I'm certainly not a lawyer but that's the only reason I can fathom for this round of subpoenas. What do you guys think?