Bio:
I am an Air Force veteran that grew up in Dallas Texas. After leaving the military, I earned a BA in Government and BS in Human Biology from UT Austin. I am currently an MD/MPH candidate at the UT Health Science Center at San Antonio.
I went to see Stop-Loss tonight with my wife. Stop-Loss is about a personnel policy used by the military and directed by the President, that equates to a back door draft. Stop-Loss is just what it sounds like, a policy put in place to stop the loss of military service members due to attrition. According to the film, since 9/11 81,000 service members have been stop lossed.
Tomorrow marks the next step in our presidential nominee selection process. The question of who our next nominee will be is still up in the air. One question we can answer for certain, however, is that no matter who our candidate(s) are, we must come together and support all Democratic candidates in November.
81,000 service members have been stop lossed. As far as I am concerned, the blood of any of these people that were sent back to the desert and killed lies directly on the hands of George W. Bush and his failure to manage our American military force, however, military mismanagement is just one issue of many. The ability for us to bring about real change runs parallel with our ability to elect a Democratic majority. Only through a Democratic majority can we: bring an end to the war in Iraq, finally take care of our children and schools, establish universally accessible health care, and so on.
A Democratic majority with a Democratic president - necessities for change and progress - anything else will continue the abuse of our brave service members. Anything else will fail to honor those who have sacrificed so much for us all.
I am still looking into the details of this tragedy, so for now bear with me while I quote excessively. This is take from the Dallas Observer:
Shortly before 10:30 a.m., Dallas police Lt. Craig Miller, commander of the homicide unit, confirmed what had already become evident in the light of day: Late yesterday, Dallas Blog political columnist Rufus Shaw took a handgun and shot his wife, former Dallas Area Rapid Transit chair Lynn Flint Shaw, before turning the gun on himself. Cautioned Miller, "We're very preliminary into the investigation" and a long way off from getting results of toxicology reports. "And we're waiting to work with the medical examiner to determine their cause of death," he said. Nonetheless, said Miller, "that's what it's probably going to be" -- murder-suicide.
Tom Pauken of Dallas Blog posted this on Dallas Blog this morning in response to these tragic events:
(My dad posted this on Daily Kos, so forgive me in advance for promoting my own dad. This is a great analysis of the technical why of Obama's ability to inspire through speech.)
I teach speech at one of the campuses in the Dallas County Community College system. I am an adjunct professor, and my graduate training is in Rhetoric and Public Address. I also make my living as a speaker/ trainer. So -- I teach, I speak, and I train. I have also done some speech coaching for Democratic candidates and business clients.
Yesterday, I attended Obama's rally at Reunion Arena. (17,000+ people!) I also attended Huckabee's speech last night in Plano, TX. For years, I have attended every event I could to observe the speaking style of presidential candidates. In 1996, I heard Bill Clinton and Bob Dole within a two-week period. What a contrast!
We all know that Obama is a superior speaker. What does he do that makes him so? The list is long, but let me mention three specific tools that he has in his arsenal.
If you're coming here via the microsite attacking Adan Ballesteros, make sure you learn the facts about Michael Cargill as well. -- Eds.
Recent investigations have raised questions about Ballesteros' vulnerability for the General Election. These questions led Donna Beth McCormick to make a motion to rescind Ballesteros' endorsement at the North by Northwest meeting last night. While this motion failed (in an 11-14 vote), it is important to note that some voted against it because a 15-day notice was suspended, which made some members uneasy.
Regardless of the outcome of last night's meeting, some critical questions have been raised. You can read more about the legal issues here and here. Here is a quick summary:
-The DEA made a call to the DPS in January of 1995 to say that they were investigating activities that occurred in 1991 involving Ballesteros, and wanted the DPS's assistance.
-DPS began investigating, and interviewed Ballesteros in May of 1995. After a year and a half of joint investigation by DPS and DEA, a formal complaint was filed against Ballesteros for five counts of allowing confidential informants to import cocaine without interdiction, accepting cash gifts from a confidential informant, and failing to make accurate and truthful reports to his supervisors regarding his activities.
Obama for America announced today that Ted Kennedy will spend Wednesday and Thursday campaigning for Barack Obama in Texas. Their choice of locations further demonstrates that Obama is runnning a campaign to bring people together, and not one which is looking to fragment the Democratic Party.
The following rallies will be held:
CORPUS CHRISTI RALLY WITH SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY
Richardson Auditorium
Del Mar College
101 Baldwin Blvd
Corpus Christi, TX 78404
Doors Open: 12:30 PM
EDINBURG RALLY WITH SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY
University of Texas - Pan American
Student Union Theater
1201 W University Dr
Edinburg, TX 78540
Doors Open: 3:45 PM
LAREDO RALLY WITH SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY
Location TBD
Doors Open: 7:00 PM
Not to add fuel to the fire, but Obama's strategy is proof that he is running to represent all of America. In Texas, his campaign is clearly focusing throughout the state, instead of strategic regions.
Granted, he is running to win as many votes as possible, but in keeping with the BOR line of thought, his utilization of Kennedy in the Valley, an area that is polling strongly for Clinton, demonstrates this broad ideal of representation. This is further strengthened by Obama's use Kennedy's limited time in an area he is less likely to win.
Here is the latest in a string of Democratic club endorsements from Austin. CCYD is a reborn group of enthusiastic young Democrats in Austin. Their president is Kim Hokanson, and here are the results:
Constable, Precinct 1: Willie Joe Madison
Constable, Precinct 2: Paul Labuda
Constable, Precinct 3: Richard McCain
Constable, Precinct 4: Maria Conchola
County Commissioner, Precinct 3: Karen Huber
Travis County Democratic Party Chair: Andy Brown
Travis County Tax Assessor/Collector: Glen Maxey
Travis County District Attorney: Rosemary Lehmberg (following a runoff with Gary Cobb)
County Court-at-Law-8: John Lipscombe
98th District Court: Andy Hathcock
353rd District Court: Scott Ozmun
427th District Court: Jim Coronado
Texas House of Representatives, HD-46: Brian Thompson (Unanimously)
US House of Representatives, CD-10: Dan Grant
Texas Supreme Court Place 7: Sam Houston
Texas Supreme Court Place 8: Susan Criss (following a runoff with Linda Yanez)
Update: Scott Cobb pointed out that since the Fox interview, Rick Reed has come out in support of a moratorium on the death penalty. He has additionally given this statement several time:
I have decided to publicly support a moratorium on the death penalty in Travis County. If I am elected District Attorney of Travis County I will not authorize the office to seek the death penalty during my tenure.
Rick Reed, one of four candidates seeking to replace Earle, resigned Monday from his job as an assistant district attorney on the heels of his assertion that he was the only prosecutor in the office who wanted to present DeLay's case to a grand jury in 2005.
My initial impression was that Rick Reed was forced to resign over statements regarding Tom Delay, but a second read indicated something very different.
I contacted both Rick Reed and District Attorney Ronnie Earle for comments, however, only Rick Reed responded, therefore I have no comment on the District Attorney's side of the story. For those of you that don't know who Rick Reed is, he has been with the Travis County District Attorney's office for 9 years. Before this he spent 12 years with the Dallas County District Attorney's office, where he was the Democratic Party nominee for Dallas County Criminal District Attorney in 1998.
Mr. Reed is also the only Travis County DA candidate to have come out against the death penalty. His reservations are personal, however, and he agrees with the other three candidates that as District Attorney, he has to follow the letter of the law. Additionally from this interview with Fox 7 News Austin, Mr. Reed stated that while he feels it is time to seriously consider taking capital punishment out of our laws, he does not want to put himself in a position to deny a victim's family their legal right to have the death penalty considered. No other candidate has stated that they are against the death penalty.
On Monday, Mr. Reed took another step towards setting himself apart from the other candidates with his resignation. Mr. Reed pointed out that his resignation was in no way forced. His decision to resign began two weeks ago with the issuing of a memo by Ronnie Earle, reminding all candidates not to comment on the details of any pending cases. This memo was likely drafted because of Mr. Reed's reference to the Tom Delay case. His web site states that:
In 1999, Rick's career brought him to Travis County, where Ronnie Earle initially hired him to pursue felons. Soon, however, Rick's talents were focused in the Public Integrity Unit.
In that capacity, Rick had the responsibility of investigating and prosecuting public officials statewide.
Here is where Tom DeLay met his match.
When many of his colleagues were reluctant to take on the high-profile case, Rick Reed doggedly pushed forward.
When I asked Mr. Reed about the Tom Delay issue, he stated:
I felt that Tom Delay's case was at risk of being handled differently than a working class person's would have been, and I don't agree that Tom Delay's case should be handled differently, simply because of his status in the community.
After a week - on Friday, January 25 - during which Mr. Reed did not remove this comment from his web site, Ronnie Earle issued this memo:
"Media Contact
Comments to the press will be made only by the District Attorney, First
Assistant District Attorney or the division directors, or under their direction;
except that any attorney may answer a question from the press if the answer
is only a statement of what has occurred in open court or appears as a matter
of public record."
As Mr. Reed put it:
I was directed to have all statements approved by Ronnie Earle or Rosemary Lehmberg.
Ms. Lehmberg is the head Assistant District Attorney and an opponent of Rick Reed's. For Mr. Reed, this was the last straw. He spent the weekend discussing options with family and close friends, and on Monday morning, he sent this resignation letter to Mr. Earle. Mr. Reed emphasized that his resignation was not discussed in advance with Mr. Earle, and was an act he felt was necessary for continued service of the people of Travis County. Here is an excerpt:
January 28, 2008
Honorable Ronald Earle
District Attorney, Travis County
509 W. 11th Street
Dear Mr. Earle:
A famous teacher once reportedly counseled his followers, "No man can serve two masters." During the past several weeks, it has become increasingly evident that I cannot continue to serve both as a candidate for Travis County District Attorney and as an employee of the Travis County District Attorney's Office. Either I must surrender my independence as a candidate, and with it my candidacy itself, or I must surrender my position as Assistant District Attorney.
In other words, Mr. Reed felt he was given an ultimatum - break the rules [set forth in Mr. Earle's memos] or fail in his service to the community. He felt that neither would do, and resigned.
Until now, Rick Reed has not gained much momentum, or been considered a front-runner in this race. I don't know if he will even now, but one thing I can say is that his actions have begun to give him a reputation as a progressive, principled Democrat, not afraid to take the moral high-ground. Whether or not this reputation gives him traction, should be apparent by next week's DA candidate forum. I for one am looking forward to whether or not this unexpected shift will add some strength to Rick Reed's candidacy and change the balance of the race.
First of all, allow me to thank KT, Matt and Phillip for giving me this opportunity. I started reading BOR last April when my father recommended BOR as the best site for learning about Texas politics. I was living in Alaska at the time, where I was stationed by the Air Force from 2003-2007. I have always been interested in politics, thanks to a wonderful, progressive upbringing by my parents - Randy and Jeannie Mayeux. It wasn't until I was unable to get involved politically (because of Air Force regulations), however, that I evolved into the passionate activist I consider myself today.
Several events in my adult life have helped to define who I am politically. I remember getting in a fight in choir my junior year of high school. One of my classmates tended to passionately argue against the role of slavery in causing the civil war. I am an opinionated person, and my argument for the role of slavery ended up angering my classmate. I AM NOT A FIGHTER, but I sometimes have the ability to anger/excite people. In this case, I say fight, but really it was just a push and a shove. None the less, this event helped to develop my passion for politics.
I am also very stubborn, and during the 2000 general election (in which, I am proud to say, I voted for Al Gore), I had many arguments with my friends and classmates. I voted in Ohio, in hopes of helping Al Gore take Ohio (I was a student at Ohio State) - unfortunately, I was unable to convince many of my friends to do the same, and Bush took Ohio.
I can't count the number of conversations had while in the Air Force, needless to say, I was severely outnumbered. In the 2004 cycle I was as vocal as possible in my opposition against Bush and the war in Iraq. At that time, most military members supported Bush and the war with little question. One conversation I had with a young woman was heated, and in the end, we agreed to disagree. Her problem with my argument was that she could not accept the possibility that her brother was in Iraq fighting an erroneous war. How do you argue against that?
Also during this cycle, one of my supervisors threatened to discipline me for arguments that were dangerously close to insubordination. The necessity for discipline in the military leaves little room for civil disobedience, let alone arguing that the commander in chief is a liar. It's safe to say I am better off out of the Air Force.
Finally, my single-most influential event occurred in November, 2005. I was deployed to Kuwait at the time, and occasionally served on a CST or Convoy Security Team. The CST escorted buses that were transporting personnel. The proliferation of IED use in Iraq led the military to own the roads. We literally ran anyone that was not an official or Allied military off the roadways. The problem with this in Kuwait is that we are virtually an occupying force - with no need for Kuwaiti occupation. There is no need to run Kuwaitis off the roads - we do it anyways.
In my November convoy, I was riding in the vehicle responsible for clearing the road. As we ran a vehicle off the road, the driver, a middle-aged man driving his wife and two children looked at me. HATRED - no other word can describe his look.
This single moment will forever be burned into my memory. It was this moment that led me to seriously delve into politics, to seriously begin to question things. No longer would I argue for Democratic ideals and progressive values only because of my upbringing and conditioning. I began to research the issues, and question why I am a progressive. I have not finished this period of learning (all you have to do is read through my comments and diaries from the last year to see that I am constantly evolving), but I am at least at a point where I can argue issues in an educated manner. I don't think we ever stop learning.
Among other things, I am planning to write a series on the issues in Texas. I am approaching this series as though each topic were a research assignment, and while these stories may be drier than usual, I think they will add a certain level of robustness to many of the issues we regularly argue. I hope to bring some excitement as well, and as you will see shortly, I am not afraid to throw a wrench into the mechanism of things.
Once again, thank you to the editorial-board, and enough about me, it's time for politics.
With Democrats on the verge of winning back the majority in the Texas House and sweeping the National Majority, I have spent the last few weeks wondering what we are going to do once in power. We must first consider the reasons for this momentous change. Texans are unhappy with the recent work of the state government. Whether it’s because of continued abuse of the environment, a lack of compassion for children in need of health care, or ignorance towards the fact that education is the key towards progress, one thing is for certain, we are tired of having special interests and big business receive more attention that the voting public.
My caucusus are finished. Here are the numbers from the four rooms I watched:
I actually just heard that NBC is projecting Obama, so I will shortly summarize my experience. There was no clear leader, although Clinton did take three of the four rooms.
What was most interesting is that the non-viable groups were worked very hard by precinct captains from the three big campaigns. It was refreshing to see how the caucus system educates voters on the issues.
What is your thought on how Obama’s slight edge will effect the race nationally?
