Paul Burka's Considered Response

Killing the messenger because you don't like the message (0.00 / 0)

http://www.commondre...

Seems like "progressive" Democrats are as narrow in their view of the world as "regressive" Republicans. Don't like the message?  Kill the messenger.

There is a growing sentiment in this country, finally, that there is really very little difference between the two parties. Both seem self-serving and seem to hold little regard for the public interest. That is seen best through the "politics" of Nancy Pelosi and her refusal to put this country back on the right track through immediate impeachment proceedings. She prefers to play the same game the Republicans played in 2000. Keeping a morally corrupt president in the White house to ensure victory in the next election. But the Democrats may find there may be a backlash. And a Republican who is committed to ending the war in Iraq may win. Just because the Democrats have refused to end it through both the withholding of funding unless there is a process of withdrawal of troops involved and the refusal to impeach a president who lied to Congress in order to justify a war that at this point has no justification beyond the use of the war by Democrats to vilify the Republicans. Sacrificing thousands upon thousands of innocent lives in the process. All for political advantage. That is moral? It is immoral. Power for power's sake is what has corrupted both parties.  Whether in our nation's capital or our state capitals.  Including Austin.

We need more Independents. Not more Democrats. Certainly not more Republicans.

And we need more people like Cindy Sheehan.  And Paul Burka. People who look beyond the partisanship. Or perhaps in fact look at it.

---

by: Baby Snooks @ Tue May 29, 2007 at 21:53:29 PM CDT

Burka and Sheehan (5.00 / 2)

I look forward to Paul seeing your comment that places him alongside Cindy Sheehan. I share your concerns about the war, although I am more interested in ending it than in blaming others for not ending it.

You might enjoy the piece I wrote with George Lakoff on this issue. It can be found at the Rockridge Institute.

---

by: Glenn Smith @ Tue May 29, 2007 at 22:12:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Shame Congress hasn't read it... (0.00 / 0)

It's a shame that Congress hasn't read it. We have a Democratic Congress that was given a mandate in November of 2006 which it has ignored. And for which it must assume responsibility. 

The blood of hundreds of thousands of lives sacrificed for this war is now on the hands of the Democrats as well as the Republicans.

It is one thing for members of Congress to claim that they  voted for the war unwittingly. Their refusal to end it, per their power under the Constitution to do so, is not so unwitting.  It is expected of the Republicans who have for the most part continued to support the war but not expected of the Democrats who for the most part have opposed it from the point it was discovered that this administration had lied to Congress.

There was no justification for the war to begin with simply because Iraq had not attacked anyone nor given any indication that it was about to.  And that is something that the Democrats in particular overlooked then. And overlook now. We in fact were, and are, the aggressor. Every nation in the world, on that basis, would be justified in declaring war on us.

All the rhetoric in the world does not change the reality.

---

by: Baby Snooks @ Tue May 29, 2007 at 22:44:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What mandate? (0.00 / 0)

I keep hearing this mandate crap. what mandate? I dont remember electing Congress based upon a total withdrawal. It was always a phased withdrawal, nothing more. There was no END THE WAR now mandate. For some candidates, yes, but as a whole, no.

And kicking the Democrats around is NOT helping, neither is this "both parties suck" crap.

I mean, look how well that worked out in 2000. All of those who voted Nader in 2000 should take responsibility for W and this war.

We are not perfect. No one is. No party is.

And Burka? He just sucks. :-)

---

by: johncoby @ Wed May 30, 2007 at 05:05:40 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You're right and wrong at the same time (0.00 / 0)

You're right about the mandate and war stuff, but as for BS saying both parties suck --

We Dems get just as sanctimonious as the worst Republicans, especially on BOR.  An awful lot of people here make massive assumptions about what is absolutely right and what is not.  In that respect they really are no different from the Bushies, even though their point of view on issues is sometimes better.

So someone has to knock folks off of pedestals here, and it looks like BS and I have chosen to do that quite a bit.  So the question is, are you open minded or not?  Can you (not just you, John, but everyone) stand to have your assumptions challenged?  As a teacher I subject myself to that every day of my life, so it does not bother me when handled intelligently.

Fact is, I was one of those who voted for Nader in 2000, because Gore lost his way.  Or maybe I'm wrong -- maybe he never was on the right path, and I chose to delude myself into thinking he was good for a while.  I know I liked him in 1988, and would have preferred him in 1992.  But in October of 2000 I woke up and discovered that he advocated immigration policies that threatened my high-tech profession.  He thought otherwise, but two years later, the industry had crashed and wages were 55% below those of 2000.  I blame Clinton-Gore policies, not Bush, because the downturn had already started before Election Day.

Gore lost it fair and square:  he ran bad.  He could have and should have run away with it.  The candidate has to take full responsibility for the loss.

---

by: Wanderer @ Wed May 30, 2007 at 20:45:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Snooks... (0.00 / 0)

what exactly would like Congress to do? Zero the DOD budget? Bush would veto it and the veto would be sustained. Where's the 'mandate' then? What next?

Like it or not, we have an impasse. Blaming Democrats isn't going to get you any place. Blame Bush. Blame the folks in Congress, mostly R but a few D's who still refuse to do their duty and CONTROL THE EXECUTIVE.

Little difference? What a load of horseshit.

---

by: McBlogger @ Wed May 30, 2007 at 01:12:22 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Little difference indeed... (0.00 / 0)

The Democratic Congress could have passed a budget that mandated withdrawal. Even if Bush had vetoed it, Congress would have spoken for the American people.  It had an obligation to do so because that it was mandated to do so in November of 2006 when the American people returned control of Congress to the Democrats.

Who do the Democrats represent? They obviously do not represent the American people. And in that regard, there is little difference between them and the Republicans.  And they share the shame of Iraq at this point.

---

by: Baby Snooks @ Wed May 30, 2007 at 05:06:24 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Little difference? Indeed? (0.00 / 0)

"The Democratic Congress could have passed a budget that mandated withdrawal."

Uh.....they did. W vetoed it. We needed just 5 Senators to overide. Why are you not blaming them? Instead you take the easy route blaming those who actually passed the bill.

"Who do the Democrats represent? They obviously do not represent the American people."

Well then go campaign for Rudy, or McCain, or one of the other war mongers. Better yet, go campaign for Ron Paul and insure a win for McCain or Rudy.

It is amazing how so many people cant remember 2000 and nader.

---

by: johncoby @ Wed May 30, 2007 at 05:12:42 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Withdrawal versus withdrawal of troops... (0.00 / 0)

"Uh.....they did. W vetoed it. We needed just 5 Senators to overide. Why are you not blaming them? Instead you take the easy route blaming those who actually passed the bill."

I will repeat that Congress should have passed a bill mandating withdrawal.  Withdrawal of both the US military forces AND the private security forces such as those provided by Blackwater that are growing in number and no doubt are intended by this administration to remain in Iraq after the US military withdraws under the guise of providing "consulting services" to the Iraqi government in the "reconstruction" of Iraq when in fact they are a supplemental security force fighting the war and are paid as subcontractors of the Department of Defense.

Not that Congress has ever really looked at the Department of Defense budget.  Most likely we are still paying for $1,000 toilets and $5,000 hammers. 

Congress is a disgrace at this point as far as I am concerned and is engaged in just as much deception with regard to Iraq as the administration is.

No one would have to be "reconstructing" Iraq, by the way, if we hadn't "deconstructed" it to begin with. 

We were told the reconstruction would be paid for by the Iraqi government once it resumed oil production.  And yet this administration, and this Congress, seems intent on ensuring that the Iraqi government will see little of the revenue after the oil companies take their 20% of the revenues that remain after the oil companies recoup their costs involved in plundering the oil reserves now that Saddam Hussein is no longer around to protect the interests of Iraq in its own oil reserves.

Bush's motivation may have been "that man tried to kill my Daddy" but Cheney's motivation was the oil reserves and he literally promised those reserves to the oil companies before 9/11.  And appears to have delivered on his promise. 

The only reason why we are in Iraq is the oil. And that is the reason why we will remain in Iraq long after the US military withdraws its forces.  And Blackwater and the others will continue to bill the Department of Defense. And the American people.  Fools all at this point.

At least we saw some "cajones" in Austin. Apparently there are none in Washington.

But what happened in Austin should have happened at the beginning of the legislative session rather than the end of the legislative session. It did not serve the interests of the people.  Only the self-interest of the politicians.

Bush may not know the expression but the expression is fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Even those who rose up to try to remove Craddick have only themselves to blame for electing him speaker to begin with.

---

by: Baby Snooks @ Wed May 30, 2007 at 06:47:49 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Once more, but this time with feeling... (0.00 / 0)

Wait... you're going to blame the Democrats in Congress for Bush's lies about Iraq? Oh, come on.

CONGRESS PASSED THE BILL. BUSH VETOED IT AND THE VETO WAS SUSTAINED. Did you fail government or something?

You're frustrated, as we all are, with the stupid, obstinate son of  bitch in the White House, not to mention the asshat Republicans in Congress who continue to enable him.

Put the blame where it belongs, Snooks.

---

by: McBlogger @ Wed May 30, 2007 at 09:57:48 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Withdrawal (0.00 / 0)

Withdrawing the military will not withdraw our forces. Iraq is new territory so to speak.  The first war where a private military force has been engaged.  They hide behind the label of private security forces. But they are private military forces. They are for the most part mercenaries.  Used for years in Latin America to ensure the right dictator stayed in power. Usually by murdering whoever opposed the American interests.

Congress is fully aware of it. Apparently you are not.  Congress should have passed a bill mandating withdrawal. By cutting off funding for both the military forces and the private military forces.  Bush has not been able to privatize Social Security. But he has been able to privatize the military. And the main privatization has been through Blackwater.  A corporation run by, who else, a fundamentalist Christian.

http://www.blackwate...

And Blackwater has been engaged here as well. In New Orleans.

http://www.truthout....

In some ways, our military forces are there to protect the private military forces.  And so the military forces won't be withdrawn until the private military forces have in essence become the new Iraqi military forces which will protect the oil interests.  Not the Iraqi people. The Bush Dynasty never cared about the people in Latin America. It doesn't care about the people in Iraq. Apparently neither does Congress.

The American people are fools.  Total fools.

---

by: Baby Snooks @ Wed May 30, 2007 at 14:38:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Snooks, let's get this clear... (0.00 / 0)

the amount of information, if put onto DVD's, I know that YOU don't could fill supertankers. Plural. As in more than one. Don't assume EVER you have better information than myself.

What would you have Democrats in Congress do that would get around a Bush veto? I've yet to read it. Post that and then we can talk.

---

by: McBlogger @ Wed May 30, 2007 at 19:30:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Demoralization (0.00 / 0)

I just finished making this point in another thread at another blog, but it's worth repeating here. As numbers of authors, activists and resistance leaders who opposed Eastern European totalitarian regimes have told us, demoralization of the public is the first priority of tyranny.

Neither Snooks nor anyone else can't persuade me to hopelessness. In some of the progressive disappointment about that followed the supplemental appropriation vote, there is this "woe is me" bleakness that simply serves no purpose.

It is not realism. It is depression. It is doing exactly what the Bush people want you to do. Read about Solidarity in Poland. Read Vaclav Havel about Czechoslovakia.

---

by: Glenn Smith @ Wed May 30, 2007 at 20:33:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree with everything but the last sentence (0.00 / 0)

Before 1994, it was pretty easy to get away with saying there was little difference before Ds and Rs.  Ross Perot ran a campaign based on it in 1992 and as loony as he was, it got him 19%.  But after the Republican Resurgence, it got medieval in Congress.  After 2001, it got primeval (or it is that prime evil?) in the White House.  Anyone who says there is no difference today needs to update their worldview.

---

by: Wanderer @ Wed May 30, 2007 at 20:52:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I like your response to Burka's response (0.00 / 0)

And I appreciate that he took the time to respond to you. He knows a lot. Maybe too much. I mean, how much politics can be stored in one human brain without some kind sensory malfunction every now and again?? ;-)

---

by: Elsbeth @ Tue May 29, 2007 at 21:59:30 PM CDT

My favorite Burka Blog post ever: (5.00 / 2)

http://www.texasmont...

I remember reading this at the time and thinking, yep, this guy just got off the bus from Mars.  Either that, or he's just another Republican deep in denial.

Found it hard to take him very seriously after that.

---

by: Stas @ Tue May 29, 2007 at 22:42:22 PM CDT

I didn't read his blog (0.00 / 0)

before the election last year. That's interesting. He sure got it wrong. Thanks for that link.

---

by: Elsbeth @ Tue May 29, 2007 at 23:13:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That is funny! Burka predicted a Republican congress in 2006. (0.00 / 0)

Yep. Hard to take him serious.

---

by: johncoby @ Wed May 30, 2007 at 05:07:49 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well it's not a Democratic Congress (0.00 / 0)

It's more a Republicrat Congress.  Pelosi and the others may talk a good talk. But they don't walk it.

---

by: Baby Snooks @ Wed May 30, 2007 at 06:50:59 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's harder than it looks (0.00 / 0)

But they're working at it. I don't think our country has ever seen such an arrogant and power-mongering executive branch, have we? As the Republicans come to their senses, they will place more and more pressure on Bush. Their party is slowly, but surely, disintegrating.

---

by: Elsbeth @ Wed May 30, 2007 at 15:23:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And good riddance (0.00 / 0)

"Their party is slowly, but surely, disintegrating." 

Perhaps I should say good riddance to both parties because in a way the Democratic Party is disintegrating as well.  Anyone who doesn't think so needs to read Cindy Sheehan's statement again. The same moral corruption is to be found in both the Democratic and the Republican parties. She was, in the end, vilified more by the Democrats than she was by the Republicans. Which does not speak well of the Democratic Party.

The founding fathers should have banned the two things that have begun to destroy our democracy. Organized religion and organized political parties. If they had been "partisan" we would never have become a democracy.  Something no one ever really thinks about when they are waving their little partisan flags and screaming like banshees.

---

by: Baby Snooks @ Wed May 30, 2007 at 15:47:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't know where to start (0.00 / 0)

It feels like a throw the "baby out with the bathwater" moment. I don't think we want to do that, yet, do we? I actually like the process when it's working fairly. Maybe the process has been so corrupted that it will take a lot to get it back. But I think it's worth trying.

---

by: Elsbeth @ Wed May 30, 2007 at 17:24:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

We can start by voting against all incumbents (0.00 / 0)

Regardless of party.  That's pretty tough to do, but I'm not fond of any of them, in the Texas or U.S. houses or senates. 

---

by: Wanderer @ Wed May 30, 2007 at 20:55:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Paul Burka (5.00 / 2)

For as long as I can remember---and I can remember Paul Burka in the late 1960s when he worked for Rep. Ed Harris of Galveston and I worked for Rep. Rex Braun of Houston----his views have been pro-Establishment.There has never been a populist bone in his body, not an ounce of egalitarian blood in his veins. His nature is to support those exercising power and those in control of institutions, and to oppose insurgents. At the time of the American Revolution, people of his temperament were shocked by the rhetoric of Tom Paine, alarmed by the messy rabble talking of  revolution and were supporting King George in the hope that he would put down the rabble. Refresh your memory of Burka's writing and you will recall that he has repeatedly sung the praise of anti-populist, elitist Establishmentarians with a certain noblesse oblige like Bill Hobby,Ray Farabee and John McFarlane.But he attacked and ridiculed the likes of Oscar Mauzy and Carlos Truan because they were gut-fighters who challenged the corporate power structure of this state and had little use for Burka's infatuation with style and process. What shines through Texas Monthly's 10 Best issue every two years is Burka's emphasis on being a process junkie. He always makes it quite clear in the 10 Best issue that he values those whom he views as value-neutral technocrats, master of process---and the hell with what government and politics is all about. Make no mistake, the main activity taking place at every level of government and politics is the conflict between the public interest and the special interests. You'd never know that from reading Paul Burka in Texas Monthly. He would have you believe that it's all about process and style. Come to think of it, that's what the Bill Messers and the other super lobbyists and influence peddlers for the special interests would like for you to believe.

 

---

by: Dave Shapiro @ Tue May 29, 2007 at 23:14:34 PM CDT

I hope that Paul Burka (0.00 / 0)

will respond to your post. I think it will be very informative to see what he has to say.

At the time of the American Revolution, people of his temperament were shocked by the rhetoric of Tom Paine, alarmed by the messy rabble talking of  revolution and were supporting King George in the hope that he would put down the rabble. Refresh your memory of Burka's writing and you will recall that he has repeatedly sung the praise of anti-populist, elitist Establishmentarians with a certain noblesse oblige like Bill Hobby, Ray Farabee and John McFarlane. But he attacked and ridiculed the likes of Oscar Mauzy and Carlos Truan because they were gut-fighters who challenged the corporate power structure of this state and had little use for Burka's infatuation with style and process.

---

by: Elsbeth @ Tue May 29, 2007 at 23:40:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Paul Burka (0.00 / 0)

My apologies for an error in my earlier posting. Bob McFarland was the Republican state senator from Arlington in the 1970s and 80s who was a favorite of Paul Burka. He was not a reactionary, but an articulate Establishment Republican who carried carried big buckets of water for the corporate clients of the "better elements" of the lobby with great ability.

---

by: Dave Shapiro @ Wed May 30, 2007 at 07:31:25 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Paul Burka (5.00 / 1)

My apologies for an error in my earlier posting. Bob McFarland,not John McFarlane,was the Republican state senator from Arlington in the 1970s and 80s who was a favorite of Paul Burka.He was not a reactionary, but an articulate Establishment Republican who regularly carried  big buckets of water for the corporate clients of the "better elements" of the lobby with great ability.

---

by: Dave Shapiro @ Wed May 30, 2007 at 07:34:07 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not Moses...but not sooo bad (5.00 / 2)

Burka is a journalist with an opinion.

I have frequently disagreed with TM's penchance for annointing the absurd and wasting perfectly good ink on ridiculous subject matter...but I have never found Burka to be the Messiah nor the Anti-Christ.

I have certainly never seen any evidence that he was a partisan type of cat...that wasn't immediately rebutted by evidence that he was batting for the other side all along.

Point being: he is an average voter with above average volume of imformation about the goings-on.  Therefore, he is ALL over the map.

I often find myself agreeing with him and disagreeing with his existence in the very same post.

I find his allowance of "anonymous" posters silly (even though one could argue the same about some posters here).

But I don't believe he is a shill for anyone.  I think he calls it like he sees it (far more often than not) and that our community is impassioned at this crazy time and lacking objectivity as a whole.

Even when the author, Glenn, says "Paul's statement above should be recognized as the center of what progressives work for"...people continue to rail against the guy because your either not reading what is written...or you don't care what is written.

Please, please, please don't forget that we are the thoughtful side.  We are the tolerant ones.  We dislike the reactionary side.  We believe in diversity...not just in skin color and ethnicity, but in thought and opinion.

THEY have litmus tests...not us.  THEY persecute those that are different...not us.  THEY fail to understand the people around them and the perspective of those people...not us.

Progressively practice what you preach.  Live it...don't just stick it on your bumper.

---

by: colin @ Wed May 30, 2007 at 22:48:20 PM CDT

Nicely put (0.00 / 0)

I especially like your "average voter with above average volume of info" line.

---

by: Glenn Smith @ Wed May 30, 2007 at 22:58:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Glenn and Paul Show (0.00 / 0)

The Glenn and Paul show has been pretty good. Paul was gracious in his mea culpa as Glenn was clear in his critique and generous in his criticism. His criticism of Paul's perceived bias toward process and authority seems to echo feelings I have had for a long time. I read Paul's macro views of Texas politics and think he does a service by putting his experience over the years to work for journalism.

Paul should be congratulated for instituting the ten worst and best, as a way to get Texans to pay attention. And I like the part where that article honors legislative expertise which often does exemplify good character and real craft.

Paul seems to pronounce truth as if it was emblazoned on granite
tablets and handed to him by the goddess of liberty and brought down by the Moses-like scribe for the lost tribe to organize their code around.

But I have noticed a clear trend from the beginning in his award's ceremony in the TM. The winners with some exception are mostly lobby favorites. Those who manipulate the rules most effectively are those who have clients with the biggest coffers generally. Not always. And Paul sometimes catches that. I know Ann Marie does.

But the bias is clear. For years emotional uprisings by Chicano legislators were dismissed. I think  Carlos Truan set the all time Burka record for being on the Worst list the most. That Truan seemed to be was the personification of an outrage that needed to be heard clearly in the Legislature, like Paul Moreno, is not lost on any of us who grew up in South Texas. Maybe by the
lobby driven ethic that Burka most surely uses for his critique,
these people do not belong on the best list. But they don't deserve the enmity of a magazine whose journalism does not want to be seen as the voice of the professional lobby.

Again, I will read the TM issue. And maybe this discussion will leaven this approach. We have seen Burka do good work. But we have as well watched him pronounce manythings that rather missed the mark, such as the invincibility of Craddick, the Governor, and a host of others only to watch them fall on their own petard
as their Achilles Heel gave way. That heel is almost always arrogance.

Best
Dee Simpson
lobbyist too

---

by: deesimp @ Thu May 31, 2007 at 12:09:54 PM CDT

Lost Horizon (0.00 / 0)

Paul Burka is obviously a knowledgeable and talented journalist.  He wouldn't have gotten where he is and stayed as long as he has if he were not.  He IS the conventional wisdom.

However, he tends to foretell the future by only looking back to the past -- a dangerous thing to do in a state that is changing so fast and so fundamentally.  Mr. Burka needs to realize that it ain't 1963 or 1993 anymore.

A self-avowed Republican, he doesn't understand that his party's philosophy has devolved into a simple formula of one part stubbornness and one part selfishness.  If the GOP has a vision of the future, it only goes so far as its next raid on the treasury.

As for the Democrats, he's bereft of nuance: you're either a rural conservative white boy or urban (minority) liberal.  The former is the sure victim of creeping Republicanism and the latter is condemned to irrelevance.  Mr. Burka, I suggest that you introduce yourself to Representatives Heflin and Cohen.

If I knew Paul Burka well (we met briefly on a plane years ago), I'd recommend that he take a look ahead instead of remaining focused on the Texas of yore.  After all, it's awful hard to know what's coming if you've lost sight of the horizon.

---

by: J. Crosby @ Thu May 31, 2007 at 13:55:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]