Since I quit writing about Texas politics regularly in 2008, I've been studying terrorism. My undergraduate degree focused on the subject quite a bit, and the entirety of my post-graduate work has been on transnational terrorist groups and networks, and how counter-terrorism policy affects those groups.
So naturally, I think Bill Flores' plan to kill the Department of Energy is an incredibly stupid idea. Because it is. When my buddy Joe and I decided to start mercilessly wailing on all of the incredibly bad ideas floating around politics this year, that clowny business joined Meg Whitman's economic policies for California as an early subject.
By the way, if you spot other bad ideas that just demand similar treatment, please point them out.
On April 15, a series of protests were held across the country against President Obama's budget measures and economic recovery policies. More specifically, these protests were regionally organized, thematic demonstrations modeled - loosely, at best - on the Boston Tea Party predating the American Revolution.
In 1773, colonials in Massachusetts were angered by the British Parliament's Tea Act. Among other things, they viewed it as an affront to their constitutional right to only be taxed by their elected representatives. They protested the Tea Act by taking three shiploads of tea that Boston's Royal Governor Thomas Hutchison refused to return to Britain and dumping them into Boston Harbor.
The various tea-themed activities during the protests of this past April were largely symbolic, a misread historical metaphor used as a shared rallying point. Most of the actual protesting was done via speech and sign and other normal demonstration fare rather than through the destruction of actual tea.
This year's Tea Party-Goers had two advantages that the colonists lacked in organizing their protests: online organizing and Fox News. How much each contributed to attendance at the day's events is a matter for debate.
The Nominations Committee is in recess, having just given 24 of 29 votes to Boyd Richie. Some extraordinary things just happened in this room, not the least of which is that Chairman Richie just answered questions for an hour and picked up a few votes, and he was able to do that while in the middle of running the largest TDP state convention in modern history.
In 2006, Glen Maxey and Boyd Richie were both running for Chair and the Nominations committee meeting was a much shorter affair: Richie and Maxie almost evenly split the vote coming out of the committee.
This time, Boyd Richie garnered his 24 votes from the Nominations committee on the first ballot while facing two other candidates and a tough round of Question Time. Consider that for a moment. The Nominations Committee is elected by the Senate Districts, not appointed by the party.
This committee truly represents the will of a newly energized Democratic Party, one that is incredibly diverse, vibrant, and ready to win. That they voted so overwhelmingly for Boyd speaks not only to the incredible job Boyd has done and his strength as a candidate for re-election, but it also speaks to the character of the Nominations committee itself. The Senate District caucuses chose these elected representatives well.
Throughout the primary season, the Texas Blue did not endorse. We wanted badly to remain neutral while still bringing you news and analysis throughout the primary season and then, later, throughout the extended presidential primary process as well. Yesterday the Democratic primary officially ended and Barack Obama became the Democratic Party's nominee. Today it is a point of pride for me to personally endorse Boyd Richie for Texas Democratic Party chair.
On this week's episode of Who's Blue, our guest is Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee. We discuss his political career, the role of the netroots and new media in future electoral cycles, and some DNC strategy for 2008. A partial transcript of our discussion can be found after the jump.
Our guest on this week's episode of Who's Blue is State Representative Kirk England. I contacted Representative England in hopes of talking about his decision in greater detail and learning a little bit more about the newest Democrat in the State House, and he accommodated me with some candid discussion. A partial transcript is after the break.
It isn't a new dance, its what happens when you go from GOP presidential nomination front-runner to being unable to raise competitive money in the second quarter. MSNBC is reporting that McCain's campaign manager Terry Nelson and his chief strategist John Weaver have both stepped down. MSNBC has the AP wire report.
This week, General Wesley Clark joined us on Who's Blue to discuss those issues, his political activism through WesPAC and VoteVets.org, and what he views as a dangerous foreign policy precedent being set by the Bush administration in regards to Iran and the Middle East.
We wanted to make everyone aware of this. Karl lynch writes:
The Texas Supreme Court just held that the “made whole” doctrine must yield to an insurance company’s right to contractual subrogation under the terms of the insurance policy. To call this opinion anti-consumer would be an understatement of biblical proportions.
What does this mean? You, as a Texas citizen, are severely limited in your ability to recover in a personal injury claim.
The long standing position in Texas was that if the insurance company or the person must go unpaid in an accident, the loss should be borne by the insurance company for that is a risk the person has paid the insurance company to assume. This was an equity position, a fairness position.
This current case says that if there is a contract that specifies a subrogation right to a third party recovery then that contractual right trumps equity principles.
Bottom line — Insurance companies win and you lose.
Clearest example: You are in a car accident and have medical bills of $25,000.00 all paid by health insurance. The person that hits you has a minimum policy of $20,000.00. That person turns over his $20,000.00. Your health insurance company gets every dollar and you, the injured person, recover nothing.
In the good old days (read: YESTERDAY), you could negotiate with your health insurance company to get a reduction in the amount of subrogation so that you could collect something for being injured. This decision takes away this avenue of compromise.
What are the chances that the legislature will fix this problem and make equitable principles the law in Texas?
