Statesman Allows David Dewhurst to Write 1/3 of a Front Page Story

by: Phillip Martin

Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 06:00 AM CDT

Key Question: Just two days after publishing an accurately critical quote by Republican Senator Jeff Wentworth about Republican Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst, why did the Statesman publish an entire fluff piece on Dewhurst on the front page of its paper that not only ignored the original story, but was co-written by Dewhurst himself?

Is this what a wink and a nod between failed elected officials and yellow newspaper editors looks like in the 21st century?

• Monday, June 29: The Statesman reports that Republican Senator Jeff Wentworth says that the Senate is "not going to put up with" Dewhurst trampling the will of the Senate for his own partisan favors for Governor Rick Perry any longer.
  
  
• Wednesday, July 1: David Dewhurst co-writes 1/3 of a front page story for the Austin American-Statesman, where he is the only one quoted and the original Monday story is completely ignored

Don't believe me? Let's look at some facts:

• 804 words are in the story, total
  
• 270 words are direct quotes of David Dewhurst
• 0 words are quotes from anyone other than Dewhurst
• 0 words challenge anything Dewhurst says

Dewhurst claims the session was a huge success -- and there is not a single word to challenge that. Not one.

Really, Statesman?

No one who works for the Statesman thought that it might be responsible journalism to follow up with Dewhurst about the fact that a leading Republican State Senator from Central Texas, -- the area the Statesman covers -- declared, "We're not going to put up with this any longer" about Dewhurst? Dewhurst was the sole subject of the entire article -- and you couldn't ask him one question about the remarks you'd reported only two days before?

Really?

Am I, as a reader of your publication, supposed to somehow forget this other piece of news you published, titled: ‘We’re not going to put up with this any longer,’ Wentworth says

[Republican State Senator Jeff Wentworth] added, “We’re not going to put up with this any longer. There are a number of senators that I’ve already spoken to that agree with me. It only takes 16 senators to adopt rules.”

Wentworth said Dewhurst told him that Gov. Rick Perry talked to him 20 times about stopping the legislation. And he said former Sen. Ken Armbrister, who works for Perry, “cajoled and threatened” six senators into opposing the measure, giving Dewhurst the cover he needed to not bring up the bill. (Asked about all this, Dewhurst spokesman Rich Parsons said only that the bill did not have the votes necessary to be called up).

Wentworth said there is an unwritten understanding between senators and the lieutenant governor that if 21 senators are willing to debate a bill, Dewhurst will recognize the appropriate senator to bring it up.

“The lieutenant governor should not abuse that power that we give him,” Wentworth said. “He should not have given his word to Perry that he would kill that bill.”

Pretty heavy accusations from one of Central Texas' State Senators. But was there any follow-up about that in the front page story on Wednesday? Nope. Instead, David Dewhurst got an 804-word direct mail piece sent to the door of thousands upon thousands of Texans, bought and paid for by the Austin American-Statesman.

And it's not like Senator Wentworth's critiques of Dewhurst were without company. A few weeks before, Harvey Kronberg -- owner of Quorum Report and writing a piece of political commentary for News 8 Austin -- took Dewhurst to task:

His denials notwithstanding, most in the Capitol now believe that Dewhurst conspired with Sen. Tommy Williams to trick the other senators on the first day of the session. Williams surprised his colleagues by proposing a new rule mandating the Senate take up voter ID, a bill that Democrats otherwise had the votes to block.

The Williams play ultimately led to a session-killing filibuster in the House, by a handful of Democrats. But if Dewhurst was blindsided by Williams as he said, why did he reward him with one of the most important chairmanships at his disposal – Senate Administration?

Perhaps it was because of his upcoming wedding in June and the preparations were distracting. But Dewhurst's erraticism, lack of concentration and inability to keep a schedule were the talk of almost every senator. He was rarely in the chair. By most reports, he was inconsistent and dismissive in his dealings with Speaker Joe Straus.

Rick Casey of the Houston Chronicle had noted some of Dewhursts' failures, as well, in a piece that ran at the end of session correctly identifying Lieutenant Governor Dewhurst as failing a test of character in playing his part in letting CHIP legislation die:

Dewhurst told reporters Wednesday afternoon that he was “looking for a vehicle” for CHIP expansion, he received some help.

Journalist Harvey Kronberg, whose online “Quorum Report” is must reading in the capital, quickly posted an item pointing out, as he had earlier in the day, that Coleman’s bill was available in the Finance Committee.

Thursday afternoon Dewhurst said Coleman’s criticism was “premature.” Dewhurst said Thursday evening the bill could be revived, but he was exaggerating.

Was it a deliberate charade or callous stupidity?

Does it matter, since Gov. Rick Perry appeared ready to veto the bill anyway?

Yes, it matters. It was a test of either character or competence. Dewhurst and Ogden flunked.

Sounds like a lot of controversy surrounding Dewhurst's role in the last session, doesn't it?

Yet does Mike Ward or the editors at the Statesman bring any of that into context? Not even a little. Instead, this talking point from Dewhurst is published unchallenged on the front page of the Austin American-Statesman:

As for the regular session, Dewhurst insisted that despite a last-minute partisan fight in the House that killed hundreds of bills and left the legislative process in chaos at the end, it was successful for the upper chamber.

"For the Senate and myself, this was almost a textbook perfect session," he said. "We addressed all of our important legislation early, got it passed — even though some Democrats filibustered and killed 200-plus of our Senate bills."

• 804 words are in the story, total
  
• 270 words are direct quotes of David Dewhurst
• 0 words are quotes from anyone other than Dewhurst
• 0 words challenge anything Dewhurst says

Oh, and by the way -- this just puts the icing on the cake.

Statesman writer Mike Ward, following the fluff piece that ran Wednesday morning, followed it up with not one, but two blog posts about Dewhurst's wedding the previous weekend. Even Ward, thinking it was cute and recognizing his fan-boy obsession with Dewhurst, closes his final love letter to The Dew with the following:

You asked Statesman.com for more details. We asked Dewhurst.

“What are you, TMZ?” quipped a staffer standing nearby.

Don't flatter yourself, Mike. TMZ would be a welcome change of professionalism.

Lack of Leadership Costs Texas Taxpayers

by: Matt Glazer

Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 10:05 AM CDT

Answer: $30,000 per day.

When Perry calls the anticipated special session to extend the life of the five agencies, it will cost taxpayers another $30,408 a day for lawmakers to finish their incomplete business.

Ratcliffe writes a detailed story about the real costs of operations at the capitol.  While the 140 day regular session only costs $9.1 million dollars, a special session could cost tax payers an additional $900,000 if the session runs 30 days.

Simply put, Lt Gov. David Dewhurst, Speaker Joe Straus, and Governor Rick Perry's failure to lead is literally costing tax payers.

Rick Perry has been the Governor of Texas since George W. Bush became President in 2000.  He officially assumed the top spot December 21, 2000. Since becoming Governor, there have been 7 special sessions-- 3 in 2005 to deal with education financing, 3 in 2003 to deal with redistricting and 1 more in 2004 to finish off the job.

Now we are looking at an 8th special session in Perry's long tenure as Governor. That is nearly 2 specials called for every regular session.  This time we are going to spend $30,000+ a day because of a failure to pass necessary language to keep the Texas Department of Transportation, Department of Insurance, Office of Public Insurance Counsel, the Texas Racing Commission or the State Affordable Housing Corporation alive.

Now taxpayers are required to pay for a lack of leadership from the Republican Party... again.

Legislature Adjourns Sine Die, Refuses to Pass Top Perry Priority

by: Matt Glazer

Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 09:31 PM CDT

Here is the long story.

The Texas Department of Transportation and the Texas Department of Insurance are under threat of sunseting before the next regular legislative session.

The next session won't start for a little under 2 years, but both agencies begin the sunset process in a little over a year and a half.  The gap required legislators to discuss a Sunset safety net to fix the gap.

The House put a quick and dirty solution together and voted out HCR 291.  HCR 291 was the proposed solution to keep TDI and TxDOT operating until next session since HB 1959 didn't get through the deadlines.

When the Republican led Senate couldn't figure out what to do in response to the Republican led House, Republican Troy Fraser made the motion to simply adjourn the Texas Senate Sine Die without fixing the problem.

According to Quorum Report, Leticia Van De Putte opposed the idea and told her colleagues in the Senate exactly what she thought.

San Antonio Democrat Leticia van de Putte was not satisfied with the response.  She pointed out that the Department of Insurance is also in danger of being sunsetted.

"What happens to consumers should be leave here with out authorizing the continuance of the Texas Department of Insurance (and TxDOT)?" Van de Putte asked.

[...]

"I'm afraid that we are shirking our responsibility. Just because the House has acted irresponsibly, does that mean they have to drag the Senate into it, too?" Van de Putte said.  "We are possibly facing legislative suicide with those two agencies."

Needless to say, the nearly 2/3rd Republican chamber voted to adjourn without fixing the problem.

Now, Rick Perry has to decide whether addressing the agencies before the sunset really is a top priority of his or not.  If it is a priority, his only solution is to call a special session. If it was all political pandering and posturing, then say goodbye to TxDOT and TDI.

Regardless, this is what failed leadership looks like on every level.  This a failure of the House, Senate, and the Governor.  There wasn't a leader at any level and because of it, Republicans decided to go home instead of working through the problem.

Windstorm insurance was a huge priority for Rick Perry.  The hard work and push doesn't mean much without the Department of Insurance.

Clearly, more on this story as it develops.

Governor Rick Perry, Senate Republicans Oppose CHIP Expansion

by: Phillip Martin

Fri May 29, 2009 at 07:41 AM CDT

Key Point: The Senate already "supported" CHIP legislation 29-2, on the amendment to Rep. Pierson's bill. It only takes 4/5 of the Senate to pull Rep. Coleman's bill out of Senator Ogden's committee and bring it to the House floor. 29/31 > 4/5. It's entirely up to Senate Republicans -- are they willing to put children's health care first, or are they going to stand by Rick Perry and kill expansion of CHIP?

Yesterday, Texas Governor Rick Perry spoke out against CHIP expansion legislation -- possibly even threatening a veto -- at the same time that Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst and Senate Republicans attempted to dishonestly derail any hopes of CHIP expansion legislation passing this session.

The AP story that ran in the Houston Chroncile ("Perry opposes CHIP expansion plan") has the quote (emphasis added):

"No. I would probably not be in favor of that expansion even if it came to my desk. I think the members know that," Perry said. "That is not what I consider to be a piece of legislation that has the vast support of the people of the state of Texas."

The "vast support of the people of Texas" don't support the plan? CHIP has been one of the winningest issues for Texas Democrats over the past six years. Moreover, a poll last November by a Republican research firm, Hill Research Consultants, had the following information:

• Helping "children access quality healthcare" is the top priority of 18% of registered voters in TX, 2nd highest of any issue.
• In a re-elect question on Republican elected officials, 54% of registered voters said they would "give Democrats a chance."
  
• Children's healthcare is the top priority of 85% of those regustered voters who would "give Democrats a chance."

Moreover, the House and Senate have already passed versions of the legislation. The Senate passed legislation by Senator Averitt, while the House passed legislation by State Rep. Garnet Coleman. The Senate, in an attempt to be cute, attached Sen. Averitt's version of the legislation to a House bill that had was not about CHIP -- therefore, it would have been struck down on a point of order.

The House, not surprisingly, said, "um, no, we can't do that" -- and Rick Casey, in his column in today's Houston Chronicle titled, "CHIP charade also failed test of character" calls out the Senate Republicans for their nonsense:

But Dewhurst and Sen. Steve Ogden, R-Bryan, the powerful Finance chairman who declined to call a committee meeting to report out Coleman’s bill, didn’t need to take a chance, and they knew it. Both are veterans familiar with the House rules.

What’s more, when Dewhurst told reporters Wednesday afternoon that he was “looking for a vehicle” for CHIP expansion, he received some help.

Journalist Harvey Kronberg, whose online “Quorum Report” is must reading in the capital, quickly posted an item pointing out, as he had earlier in the day, that Coleman’s bill was available in the Finance Committee. [...]

Was it a deliberate charade or callous stupidity?

Does it matter, since Gov. Rick Perry appeared ready to veto the bill anyway?

Yes, it matters. It was a test of either character or competence. Dewhurst and Ogden flunked.

The Senate already "supported" putting the CHIP legislation on the dead legislation 29-2. It only takes 4/5 of the Senate to pull Rep. Coleman's bill out of Senator Ogden's committee and bring it to the House floor. 29/31 > 4/5. 

The Senate Republicans have already shown that they want the CHIP legislation. There is already a 4/5 majority that have voted for it. There's absolutely no reason, whatsoever, for Senate Republicans not to pull Rep. Coleman's bill out of committee, amend Sen. Averitt's bill to it, and send it back to the House.

If there is no CHIP expansion bill, Governor Perry's veto threat and the complete "charade [of] callous stupiditiy" exercised by Senate Republicans are squarely to blame. Dewhurst was the one that wanted to kill CHIP in 2007; he's trying to do it again.

Will the Senate Republicans block the CHIP expansion bill? That may be the biggest issue of today. Stay tuned.

Kirk Watson: It's that time of the legislative session again...

by: Michael Hurta

Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 00:34 PM CDT

That is what Kirk Watson did today in his Watson Wire.  He tells an ambiguous story that shows a flaw in his abilities, and he realizes that people sometimes ask this question of him: "Oh, my. This guy is out there making laws I have to live under?"

And he comes to this appropriate conclusion:

The truth is, it's that time in the legislative session when lots of people are probably asking that sort of question about the folks who are making the laws, or trying to.

And another truth is, some folks seem to provide more reasons to ask that question than others.

Can anyone say Rick Perry?  David Dewhurst?  Todd Smith?  These are just a few possibilities...

TX-Sen: Democrats Significantly Outraise Republicans

by: David Mauro

Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 06:21 PM CDT

The two Democratic candidates for the U.S. Senate, former comptroller John Sharp and Houston Mayor Bill White, hold significant advantages in cash on hand over their Republican opponents after the first fundraising quarter.

As we previously reported, Bill White raised $1,876,163 this quarter and began April with $2,131,638 on hand. White received contributions from 1,400 Texans. No personal loans were included in his totals this quarter.

John Sharp reported receiving $2,516,833 in loans and contributions this quarter to finish with $2,432,675 on hand. The number, in itself, is impressive but as Gardner Selby points out, we should reserve judgement until we learn how much of that money was from personal loans. Today, when asked, the Sharp campaign declined to disclose that information.

Both Democrats hold big advantages over the Republican candidates. 

Former Texas Secretary of State Roger Williams leads the Republican contenders with $388,628 on hand, but that number is less impressive when the $200,000 in personal loans are taken into account. State Sen. Florence Shapiro had just over $310,000 on hand, while Railroad Commissioners Elizabeth Ames Jones and Michael Williams have $164,663 and $113,957 on hand, respectively.

The Democratic money advantage, however, may not last. Well financed candidates such as Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, who would pour his personal wealth into a campaign, and Attorney General Greg Abbott are also said to be considering the race.

When the amount of Sharp's personal loans are known, we will have a better idea of how the money race is shaping up on the Democratic side.

Texas Republicans Loot Public School Funds

by: Libby Shaw

Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 02:18 PM CDT

I literally spat out my coffee this morning when I saw an article on front page of the Houston Chronicle's City and State section Stimulus, or better yet, status quo. Political reporter Lisa Falkenberg reveals one of the most appalling and unimaginable Republican shenanigans regarding federal stimulus money.

It seems that our esteemed lawmakers cleaned out the  public schools' piggy bank so it could replace it with federal stimulus money  

If Republicans OK a 4-Year Grace Period on Voter ID, How Is It An Emergency?

by: Phillip Martin

Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 08:40 AM CDT

I somehow had missed this -- from an older article on voter ID by Gardner Selby of the Statesman, "Voter ID fights take new shape at Capitol" --

Possible sweeteners floated by Dewhurst include a two- to-four-year grace period before identification demands are enforced...

If this is such an urgent and immediate problem, why would Republicans be willing to wait four years to make it law? Try to somehow explain why they would be willing to offer a compromise if they truly believed this...

"Voter fraud is a very real threat to the legitimacy of our electoral system, and in a close election could very well compromise the results of what voters would rightly expect to be a fair and honest election." -- Republican State Senator Craig Estes (Source)

...or if they truly believed this...

""The voting system we have today is easy to cheat...To assume there is no voting fraud in Texas is laughable." -- Republican State Sentaor Troy Fraser (Source)

...or if they truly believed this...

Senator West: Is this more important than dealing with tuition deregulation?

Senator Williams: Senator West, I believe that it is. (Source)

Why on earth would anyone be so insistent on passing legislation that would not even take effect until 2012? Especially considering that there is such an incredible amount of evidence to suggest it's not necessary? Couldn't they commission a state-sponsored, bipartisan study and wait two years? They could still have plenty of time to pass the law and have it in place by 2012 -- or are they worried that a study would prove what everyone already knows: this is a solution in search of a problem, that voter impersonation is a non-issue, and that if we really want to curb voter fraud and improve the integrity of our elections, there are plenty of other policies out there that can do the trick.

Of course, maybe it has nothing to do with policy. Maybe it has to do with politics, as TX House Republican Elections Chair Todd Smith admitted in this story in the Statesman, "Voter ID measure set to head back to House" --

"I believe to the bottom of my heart, if I was putting on my partisan Republican hat, the best thing that could possibly happen would be for this legislation to be narrowly defeated, so Republican candidates could go into these marginal (could go either way) districts and blame Democrats for elections being less secure than they could be," Smith said.

Yup. There you have it. Republicans don't care about voter ID -- they're willing to delay it. Republicans just want a wedge issue they can use against Democrats. And you don't even have to take my liberal commie word for it:

I'm just repeating what Texas Republicans are saying.

Fixing Texan Democracy?

by: Michael Hurta

Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 07:45 AM CDT

So here we see members of the legislature arguing for countless hours in defense of America's greatest ideal.  At least our representatives exude patriotism for state and country.  The Republican leaders insist we make this change, however, as if Texan democracy needs a fix.  Last I checked; really?  The legislature only stands in session for five months, so if we want to hijack that important time for one issue, it should be an issue of extreme urgency.

But I do not perceive any crucial problems with Texan democracy.  A simple observation of elected officials will tell you that.  In a Republican-majority state, every statewide office holder has a GOP membership.  Not discounting the growing presence of Democrats, though; the House of Representatives is almost split down the middle, and almost every major city has a Democrat majority in their respective city councils.  The only argument you can make in favor of the sickness of our democracy is the lack of high profile Hispanic politicians, but I have not heard one Republican contend that SB 362 alleviates that worry.

Todd Smith, David Dewhurst, etc. might maintain that the voters want Voter ID requirements.  I guess that's true, but did the Founding Fathers listen to the people when determining how best government should listen to the people?  That just doesn't make any sense.  It makes even less sense when over 40% of Texan voters misstated the current rules on Voter ID, suggesting they are not informed enough to have a fully evolved opinion.  This is why, of course, we listen to the experts: a technique in which Representative Smith, at least, finds difficult.

Even if the UT poll found 90 percent support for Voter IDs, though, the poll found more important numbers (.pdf).   The poll's 21st question asked the open-ended query, "What would you say is the most important problem facing the state of Texas today?"  Nowhere in the document, however, do I see a response along the lines of "Integrity of Voting."  Even if every "Miscellaneous" response related to Voter ID (and that obviously is not the case), three other issue would be more important by more Texans by wide margins.  For this reason, it would make more sense for Republicans to champion racist immigration laws than racist voting laws.

Instead, our state's leadership is completely wasting our time.  According to the poll numbers, Texans would definitely prefer they tackle the problems or education, immigration, and the economy.  They probably would also easily prefer work on the energy industry, health care, and Texas' lack of true political leadership.  Texans as a whole are apparently more in touch with the health of our democracy than the Republicans are - they realize there is no problem!  And when the experts are against the Republican Party's stance on this, too, one has to wonder what the hell they are thinking.  The current session only has two and a half months left before saying goodbye for another year and a half.  Instead of squandering their hours spent in the capitol, can our state's leaders instead try to control the rising cost of my tuition, distribute the federal stimulus money productively, and become less addicted to oil?  

There were reasons epitomized by the governance of Tom Craddick that Democrats made electoral gains.  Mr. Craddick no longer sits on that pedestal of power, but those reasons are still there.  Republicans still seem to screw up our government.

TX-Sen: Poll Gives Early Snapshot in Head to Head Matchup

by: Matt Glazer

Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 11:02 AM CST

Today, Public Policy Polling released polling data for both potential primaries if KBH were to win or vacate her seat.

We tested Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst, Attorney General Greg Abbott, and state Senator Florence Shapiro on the Republican side against Houston Mayor Bill White and former Comptroller John Sharp on the Democratic side.

The first major problem I see with this is that it ignores the slew of announces or explicitly interested Republicans looking to run in Texas.  That list includes former Secretary of State Roger Williams, Railroad Commissioner Elizabeth Ames Jones, and Railroad Commissioner Michael Williams to name a few.

This list includes three higher profile, statewide Republicans.  It is curious that there is no data on these three declared candidates.

That being said, nobody is close to crossing the 50% plus 1 mark.  

Abbott, who has not announced plans to seek the seat, appears to be the strongest initial candidate. 43% of voters in the state have a favorable opinion of him compared to only 25% that view him negatively. He leads Sharp 44-36 and White 42-36 in possible contests.

What is interesting here is that White and Sharp seems to only be polling at the natural or suppressed Democratic base.  However Abbott v. White pushes Abbott down 2 points.

Dewhurst is almost as strong, with a 43/30 favorability breakdown. He leads Sharp and White by slightly more narrow margins than Abbott, 42-36 over the former and 42-37 over the latter.

Again, this poll only seems to show Democrats win Democrats and Republicans win the Republicans.  That means the independent voters and soft voters either don't know or don't care.

It seems inevitable that one of those heavyweights will get into the race if there is indeed a vacancy, but we also tested Shapiro to see how competitive the contest would be if the GOP ended up nominating one of the less well known candidates who have already made their intentions to seek the seat known. Shapiro leads White 37-36 but trails Sharp 37-34, an indication the race could pretty much be a tossup if a more well known Republican doesn't run.

This makes sense.  Dewhurst and Abbott have been on statewide ballots multiple times, Florence Shapiro has not. Her base of support seems to be close to Rick Perry's 2006 election numbers.  It also indicates if a Democratic candidate can get the resources need to run an aggressive statewide campaign, this could become a fun race to watch.

The PPP poll seems to prove this point.

...it's worth noting that Sharp and White have a lot more room to grow in terms of name recognition. 43% of the electorate has no opinion of White and 41% has none of Sharp, figures much higher than the 27% for Dewhurst and 32% for Abbott.

All this being said, there is still no race.  This is all a fun game brought to you by speculation and hypotheticals. Because this poll doesn't go through the whole field of Republicans, it leaves us with knowing what many inside political circles have been guessing for a while. With no resources, Democrats are behind.