Below are the stated positions of every member of the Texas Congressional delegation with links to their websites so you can voice your disapproval with this dangerous legislation.
Supporting SOPA/PIPA
Lamar Smith - Yes, the driving force behind SOPA is not backing off of his support for this legislation.
John Cornyn - Cornyn was a co-sponsor of PIPA, but thanks to the overwhelming backlash against the bill, urged Congress to take more time to consider the bill, and seemed to back off from his earlier support.
John Carter - Carter is one of the co-sponsors of SOPA.
Please contact your representatives and senators and tell them to vote no on these terrible bills. If their positions have changed, please note it in the comments.
At this point there have probably been more news articles written about the Iowa Caucus than there were caucus-goers supporting Mitt Romney. (Definitely more than voted for Jon Huntsman, amirite?) So rather than add to the pile, here's a round-up of some of the more interesting post-Iowa analysis.
First, up the social scientists. Over at Pew Research Center, there's a good post on "Six Small but Significant Iowa Indicators." They write:
Romney Gets 1% of "True Conservative" Voters. A quarter of Iowa caucus voters said the most important candidate quality was that they be a "true conservative." Among these voters, just 1% supported Romney; 37% backed Paul and 36% supported Santorum.
More Independents. Independents comprised nearly a quarter (23%) of GOP caucus voters, up from 13% four years ago. As was the case in 2008, roughly six-in-ten caucus voters were white evangelicals.
Republicans Split Their Votes. Three-quarters of caucus voters were Republicans and they split their votes almost evenly between Santorum (29%) and Romney (27%). Paul drew a sizable plurality (43%) among self-described independents.
The bad news for Romney (and good news for Obama!) is that he still can't land the right-wingers -- if he can't motivate the base, that's bad news for him come November, should he win the nomination. Clearly, if Romney is to be replaced with a "real" conservative, the splintered right wing voting bloc will have to unite behind a not-Mitt for good. Santorum's impressive caucus results may make him the most likely choice, except for, you know, that whole frothy fecal matter thing.
Over at Business Insider there's some interesting analysis suggesting that Ron Paul may actually have won the Iowa Caucuses. Why? He may have organized the most delegates. They report:
Paul's massive organizational push in Iowa focused on both winning votes, and also on making sure that Paul supporters stuck around after the vote to make sure they were selected as county delegates - the first step towards being elected as a delegate to the Republican National Convention.
That's because Iowa's Republican caucuses are non-binding - they are technically just a straw poll, so once selected, delegates are free to vote for whichever presidential candidate they choose.
Takes me back to 2008, begging people not to leave our over-crowded elementary school auditorium while we waited for everyone to sign in. Depending on how long this contest drags out, Paul's delegate-winning strategy may be a factor when the RNC convenes in Tampa. If they pursue this organization, the odds are that Paul will only increase his delegate share, as other also-ran supporters stop bothering with the county, district, and state convention process.
File this next one under "not ready for prime time": TechPresident reports that Santorum's website crashed for 20 minutes last night. The campaign also failed to send a fundraising email right away to capitalize on the results. TechPrez also reviews GOP contenders' websites to see who updated their pages:
Rep. Ron Paul's campaign website still leads with a how-to on caucusing in Iowa; the best real estate on Rep. Michele Bachmann's campaign home page on Wednesday was devoted to selling her book. In the first two of four slides rotating in pride of place on Romney's site, the former Massachusetts governor's campaign emphasized the Iowa victory and a contest in which one lucky campaign donor will spend New Hampshire election night with his team - both of which came with a fund-raising ask. Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who is "re-evaluating" his campaign after a lackluster performance in Iowa, also has a website that doesn't look to have been updated since last night.
Meanwhile, back here in Texas, Jason Stanford says Perry has no one to blame but Perry himself:
Perry's untethered arrogance is the only logical explanation for how a skilled politician flopped so badly as a presidential candidate. In Texas, his campaign team innovated new ways of polling and imposed a scientific rigor on paid communication unheard of at the state level. Strategically, his campaigns minimized risk and but were bold in seizing opportunity where others saw threats. In 2006, he turned a backlash on lax immigration policies into a talking point on border security. In 2009, he came from way behind against Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison by co-opting the Tea Party movement when no other politician would go near it.
None of those political traits showed up in the presidential campaign. Despite an extended exploratory phase this summer, his team did not do the quiet, hard work of a campaign: no polling, no self-research, and no debate prep. Perry's hubris blinded him into giving too much credit to the evangelical supplicants who promised to anoint him as the anti-Romney as soon as he entered the race. His campaign seemed like all he and his consultants did was sit around and tell each other how great it was going to be. No one ever bothered to get ready for the actual campaign.
Got any links you want to share about Iowa? Post 'em in the comments. Otherwise, it's onward to New Hampshire (next Tuesday, Janaury 10), South Carolina (Jan. 21), Florida (Jan. 31) and Nevada! (Feb. 4). Byaaaargh!!
Today, Steve Forbes sent an email to Rick Perry's campaign list urging people to support the floundering Texas Governor as the Conservative alternative to Mitt Romney. What was interesting about the email was its emphasis on the strategic importance of Conservative voters coming together in Iowa to support a single not-Mitt candidate.
Forbes writes:
I'm afraid that the results from the Iowa Caucuses in less than two days will still show Conservatives fractured in their support, leaving a huge opening for Mitt Romney to become our party's nominee.
Ironically, it appears to be Santorum who stands the best bet of unifying the Conservative bloc in Iowa, as his poll numbers continue to rise. So, quite naturally, the bulk of the email is dedicated to trashing Santorum over his support of Arlen Specter. Specter, you may recall, was a Republican Senator from Philadelphia who switched to the Democratic party in 2009 in a desperate attempt to save his ass from being defeated in a primary by Pat "Club for Growth" Toomey. Instead, Specter lost in the primary to actual Democrat Joe Sestak, who in turn got walloped by Toomey in November.
Anyways. The Forbes email specifically hits Santorum over his "unqualified support and endorsement of the liberal, pro-abortion former Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter over true conservative Pat Toomey in the 2004 GOP primary," which is, of course, the single #1 biggest most important reason we now have Obamacare. We might as well call it Santorumcare!
Given the prevalence of attacks on Santorum over his endorsement of Specter, it makes me wonder if that's the only hit on the former Pennsylvania Senator that resonates. Maybe instead people should poll the message "wants to have sex with dogs," because I mean come on, no one goes out there spewing non-sequitor rants against bestiality if they're not into it, right?
I mean, if Santorum wants to have sex with dogs that's his issue to resolve. There's no reason for Santorum to drag our LGBT friends in to be disparaged for their perfectly normal, consensual sexual practices. (Also? Can Spike TV produce a show about Rick Santorum's Google problem and Mitt Romney's dog? "Man on Dog" vs. Dog on Car? Please? It can be a show about projectile fecal matter.)
In the email, Forbes also takes a particularly hard hit on Ron Paul, pointing out that the Gulf Coast crank simply isn't electable. He states that Romney's campaign will attack the former Congressman relentlessly over "Paul's past positions," i.e. the crazy racist newsletters, and Paul's "strange willingness to allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons." What's interesting about that turn of phrase from Forbes is that he in no way disavows the sentiments in Ron Paul's newsletters, instead just pointing out that Paul published some unsavory things under his own name that are now coming back to haunt him.
Forbes formerly endorsed Rand "Son of Ron" Paul and also campaigned for Ron himself during his 1996 Congressional run. Awkward! Forbes is so totally not getting a Christmas card or a pile of gold coins from the Paul family next year.
Forbes himself ran for President in 1996 and 2000, using the campaign as a platform for his obsession with a regressive flat-tax. Forbes supports far-right positions such as opposing union membership for police officers and firefighters. Time Magazine called Forbes the "comedy-club impression of what would happen if some mad scientist decided to construct a dork robot." Quite naturally he's endorsed Rick Perry! Forbes bestowed his blessing last week. In today's email, Forbes writes,
Rick Perry has proven he can raise the money necessary to compete with Romney. He already has an impressive war chest. And he has the necessary national organization for a long campaign.
Perry is also dumber than a bag of hammers! Conveniently, Forbes left that part out.
Anyways, the full text of Forbes' email is below the jump, and as a bonus I dug up Forbes' old SNL email about -- wait for it -- the flat tax. Enjoy!
In a battle of the also-rans in New Hampshire, Jon Huntsman released an ad slamming Ron Paul over his racist newsletters. The ad, titled "Unelectable," combines various clips from news media and past interviews with the Congressman. Here it is:
Huntsman's effort to generate some huntsmentum has been primarily focused on New Hampshire, where the more moderate Republicans of the Granite State overwhelmingly favor Mitt Romney. Polls indicate, however, that Hunstman is topping out at approximately 12%. Ron Paul, meanwhile, seems to have a solid hold on second place behind Romney. It's not really a surprise, given that the New Hampshire state motto is "Live Free or Die," since Ron Paul's views on health care policy could be summed up as "Live Free and Die." Huntsman is thus attacking Ron Paul to try and eat into the biggest bloc of Not-Mitt's in the state.
Ironically, Paul's coalition in New Hampshire is a lot like his coalition in Iowa -- young people, Democrats, independents, and isolationists, all of whom still seem far too willing to overlook the racist claptrap in the Congressman's newsletters. Huntsman's gotta be pretty miffed that these voters are going with Ron Paul, crazy kook of the Texas gulf coast, rather than the distinguished statesman with both executive and foreign policy experience.
One of the more interesting side stories to come out of the GOP primary has been the solid work of Huntsman's video team. While the mostly-sensible moderate from Utah never really caught on with voters (and I'll always have a soft spot for the man's daring pro-science stance) his campaign team continues to crank out really impressive videos and web ads that slam all of the other Republicans. His video crew's work on Romney's flip-flopping has been fantastic, and no matter which GOP Nopeful gets the nomination, there will be some excellent Huntsman videos left over from the primary to bash the poor fool.
The other Texan in the GOP primary released an ad slamming "politicians who supported bailouts and mandates, serial hypocrites and flip-floppers," accompanied by images of Gingrich and Romney, respectively. It's not a bad strategy for Ron Paul, whose previous barrage of anti-Gingrich ads helped push the former Speaker down in the polls in Iowa. Here's the ad, in the Michael Bay-esque style we've come to expect from Ron Paul. (Aside: do his action-thriller-preview ads help grow his support with the young-white-male-stoner demographic because they're, like, cool and shit?)
What's super duper ironic about this is that he's railing against Gingrich and Romney for being Washington insiders when Ron Paul has been in Congress for 35 YEARS. And yes, the man's a crazy iconoclast, alone on an island of gold coins and draconian libertarianism in a sea of plutocrats. But still.
Look, Republicans, the only one of you that can credibly have called yourself not a career politician was the pizza man, Herman Cain. And as a result, his lack of electoral success or experience with campaigning was evident as he imploded over sexual harassment accusations. Frankly, I want a President with governing experience because it's a hard job.
By the way, if you have an hour and a bunch of brain cells to kill, go read the ALL CAPS COMMENTS ABOUT RON PAUL on that YouTube video up there. While it remains unclear to me if Ron Paul's Internet supporters are actually just the old infinite chimps with infinite typewriters, it does make me wonder what they'll all do all day when Dr. Ron gives up the campaign. All the more reason for Ron Paul to run as a third party! Otherwise his supporters will have to turn to other, more prosaic concerns like banning fluoride.
Would any of us ever have expected that Ron Paul would be the leading Texas Republican in both national polls and crucial early primary states? The Ron Paul faithful probably would, as they've been zealously organizing for their candidate since before 2008, and it's really paying off as GOP voters are still unable to unite behind either Mitt or the Not-Mitt of their choice.
What's most interesting to me in the rise of Ron Paul is that news outlets are actually reporting on field organizing, which traditionally get ignored in favor of splashy TV ads or contentious press releases intended to earn some free media coverage. However, suggesting that the ground game is the only reason why Ron Paul has caught on with so many Iowa caucus-goers basically ignores his Libertarian, isolationist policies, which while petrifying to imagine actually living under, are at least somewhat ideologically consistent.
Back in 2008, I was constantly frustrated by the media's seeming obliviousness to the impact of the Obama campaign's field organizing efforts, and how that could pay off in terms of boosted turnout. So it's good to see that four years later, the mainstream media seems to be taking a closer look at how field can indeed make an impact on the outcome of elections.
The campaign developed an Internet-based phone-banking system that allows people around the country to make calls to Iowans from home using scripts tailored to identify supporters. It seems to be working: a New York Times/CBS News poll this month found that 60 percent of likely Republican caucusgoers said they had been contacted by the Paul campaign, the highest rate of any candidate, and about double that of Newt Gingrich. The true believers have also been coached not to be rude or dismissive to those who do not embrace the message, an issue during the last campaign.
An Internet-based phone-banking system? Golly gee. What newfangled things will campaigns think of next? Maybe a palm-sized digital device to obviate data entry after canvassing!
In all seriousness, the volume of contact from the zealous Ron Paul supporters is impressive. Paul is now leading Iowa polls, as Gingrich seems to be collapsing just before the actual voting starts. And while Paul's isolationist stance sets him at odds with the war-hungry Republican base, his states'-rights, drown-the-government platform otherwise caters to many GOP faithful.
Paul should do well in the caucus states, and his extensive grassroots network should help him expand the number of states in which he's able to contact voters. And while -- just as they did with his 2nd-place showing in the Iowa straw poll -- the media will likely discount Paul even if he outright wins Iowa, Paul should continue to rack up delegates throughout the primary process on the strength of his field organizing. If there's no clear GOP nominee based on delegate accumulation by the RNC convention in Tampa, it would be interesting to see what happens if Ron Paul has enough delegates to play king-maker.
Ron Paul is probably also the only GOP candidate who could branch out and run a legitimate third-party bid. He has a large grassroots base of support, a substantial small-donor fundraising network, and a largely coherent message that sets him apart from the other GOP Nopefuls floundering around during the seemingly endless series of Republican debates. And while a Paul third-party bid effectively guarantees that Obama wins re-election, it would be a really great "Up Yours" gesture from Paul to a Republican Party that has clearly lost touch with just about every value Paul espouses. In any case, he isn't running for re-election, so what's Ron Paul got to lose?
What got the the juices flowing in the mostly Republican audience at last night's presidential debate? I gathered all the applause and laugh lines together to have a looksee. Some of what caught the audience's fancy struck me as predictable; some, less so. Some I found horrifying; some, just plain goofy.
I was probably most surprised by what I call the mid-debate social security melee, but I don't want to prejudice your perception of these highlights too much. Take a look for yourself and chime in with comments as you like.
ANNOUNCER: Live from the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California, the Republican candidates debate. Here now are Brian Williams and John Harris.
(APPLAUSE)
ROMNEY: If [Perry] tried to say that, well, it would be like Al Gore saying he invented the Internet.
(APPLAUSE)
ROMNEY: Well, as a matter of fact, George Bush and his predecessor created jobs at a faster rate than you did, Governor.
(LAUGHTER)
After serving almost 24 years in the U.S. House of Representatives, Congressman Ron Paul told The Facts exclusively this morning he will not be seeking another term for the District 14 seat. Paul, 75, will instead focus on his quest for the presidency in 2012. “I felt it was better that I concentrate on one election,” Paul said. “It’s about that time when I should change tactics.” His announcement will give enough time for anyone with aspirations for his seat to think about running, he said. Paul didn’t want to wait for filing in the 2012 primary to let people know he wasn’t seeking reelection.
With Paul's retirement, two key questions immediately come to mind: who is going to replace him, and how serious is he going to commit to running for President? Is a potential third party candidacy in the cards, because that would make things really, really interesting...
On who could replace him, lots of names immediately came to mind. Quorum Report, State Representatives and Senators with a "sizable" chunk in the newly drawn Congressional District 14 include Rep. Ritter (R), Rep. Deshotel (D), Rep. Eiland (D), Rep. Larry Taylor (R), Rep. Bonnen (R), Rep. Weber (R), Sen. Jackson (R), Sen. Williams (R) & Sen. Huffman (R). Galveston Mayor Joe Jaworski, a Democrat, is also someone who could be looking at the race.
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele is under fire (again) after his latest gaffe. Steele rewrote history again, and normally that wouldn't be a topic to discuss on BOR, but one of the few people rushing to his defense is none other than, Texas Congressman Ron Paul.
After Steele was quoted saying, the Afghanistan war launched by former President George W. Bush was "of (President Barack) Obama's choosing" and may be unwinnable.
While Republicans John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint all demanded Steele to apologize for his mischaracterization of facts, Ron Paul ran to Steele's defense.
However, conservative GOP Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, in a statement to CNN, supported Steele and said the RNC chairman's characterization of the war was correct.
"He is guiding the party in the right direction and we (the GOP) are on the verge of victory this fall," said Paul, who mounted an unsuccessful bid for the GOP presidential nomination in 2008. "Chairman Steele should not back off. He is giving the country, especially young people, hope as he speaks truth about this war." (From CNN)
Ron Paul's son, Rand Paul is running for U.S. Senate in Kentucky and his gaffe's on civil rights, apologizing to BP, claims of being board certified in Ophthalmology make his father a poor choice for public defender.
One thing has become clear, Michael Steele is creating a a bipartisan coalition. Democrats and Republicans both agree Steele is bad chairman and should probably be fired.
While John Cornyn has called on every major Democrat to resign since January 11, the chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) appears to have made no statement on whether he supports Steele or thinks he should be fired. With 119 days left until the election, this fracturing is no good for the national Republican Party.
Despite breathless media reports of divided Democrats, it is the Republican Party that is suffering deeper organizational divisions that may come home to roost this November.
BOR has reported recently on Tea Party primary challengers to incumbent Texas Republican Congressmen. Here in Central Texas, that division is going even deeper, with Tea Party challengers to many of the elected party officials in the Hays County Republican Party.
I'm not talking about State Reps or Judges... I'm talking about Precinct Chairs. Tea Party activists are primarying sitting Republican precinct chairs in Hays County. There's also a Tea Party challenger to Hays County Republican Chair Bud Wymore.
It kinda gets better. The Ellis County Observer, basically a blog for the "Ron Paul!!" crowd out of Midlothian, has endorsed in the Hays County GOP primary and stated its preference for particular precinct chairs. (Note: Ellis County and Hays County are about 3 hours apart on I-35. Just saying.) In each case, the Ellis County Observer has endorsed the Tea Party, anti-establishment Republican candidate.
So in case you are voting in the Hays County Republican primary and want to know how to cast a ballot for more dysfunction, here it is:
Hays County Co Chair - CLARK REGAN
Hays GOP Precinct # 116 - ROB ROARK
Hays GOP Precinct # 225 - DAVID CROWELL
Hays GOP Precinct # 330 - SEAN BOLOCK
Hays GOP Precinct # 337 - CRAIG YOUNG
This is more than an amusing side note to a busy primary season, however. Precinct chairs are the heart and sole of a grassroots party organization. They knock on the doors, participate in the phone banks, and do the work that makes a difference in close elections. Hays County is largely considered to be a bellwether county in Central Texas. If the party activists are largely taken over by Tea Party and Ron Paul folks who won't work for more "mainstream" conservative Republicans, it could make a difference in the upcoming election.
After all, any Tea Party activist who would do the work for the more compromised "moderate" Republicans would be giving up on their core values of liberty. The Tea Party movement is founded on grassroots activists showing their independence from a compromised Republican Party that has sold out our rights to the highest corporate bidders. Whether the Citizens United decision or the bank bailout, so-called "conservatives" like Kay Bailey Hutchison are really just shills for the corporate overlords who want to take away the individual liberties that Tea Party activists hold so dear.
Of course, the real threat is if Debra Medina squeaks into a run-off against Rick Perry. Then these now-entrenched activists will be ready to snap into action, and do all they can to push their Tea Party Hero into the general election.
But take heed, folks. The Tea Party is getting organized on a local level. What that will mean in the Republican Primary at the top and bottom of the ballot remains to be seen.
