But now it's gone too far. Rumor has it that BOR editors have now taken the next step in becoming full-fledged running-dogs of the MSM, and have secured high-dollar downtown office space.
This dude can no longer abide, comrades.
I call on all BOR commenters and groupies to take back our humble site from these bourgeoisie imposters! KT can wear his silk stockings and ride his Carbon Fiber Cannondale between Council forums all he wants. But he can't do it with our site!
I have secured the passwords of the BOR editorial class which I reproduce below. I urge all members of the commenter proletariat to join the class struggle and use these passwords to promote our movement through blog. The epoch is ours, and we shall unite!
(Taking a quick break from developments in the Speaker's race, here's an item of interest to Austin politicos. The Statesman story on this suggests that another month-long delay for Leffingwell's presumed mayoral campaign could prove costly to him in terms of fundraising and momentum - a fact which I'm sure is not lost on McCracken's team. Here's the memo McCracken wrote to the City Legal department. - promoted by Matt Glazer)
In his continuing quest to eliminate his main rival from the upcoming Austin Mayoral race, declared candidate Brewster McCracken has come up with a new legal twist that could delay his presumed opponent Lee Leffingwell's entry into the race by another month.
In the current understanding of state law, a candidate with more than a year remaining on his/her term who files for another office triggers an election for the vacated seat that must be held within 120 days. Leffingwell has pledged not to cause the city to hold an election separate from the already scheduled May municipal election, as it costs approximately $400-500k to hold an election. Vacating 120 days before the May election (which would be next week) would allow the special election to be held on the same ballot as the regular election, thus avoiding extra cost.
In the latest twist, McCracken and a college buddy have drafted a legal memo which posits that it is not sufficient to simply have a special election within 120 days, but that the vacated seat must actually be filled within 120 days. With threestrongcandidates already lining up to contest for Leffingwell's vacated seat, the possibility of a run-off is strong. If a run-off election occurs a month later, it will occur approximately 150 days after Leffingwell vacated the seat (assuming vacation next week). McCracken's analysis states that Leffingwell cannot vacate and declare until mid-February in order to comply with the 120 day requirement.
McCracken's legal maneuvering came in the form of a memo drafted and forwarded to City Legal for an opinion. City legal is generally very hesitant to provide legal opinions to candidates for office regardless of their status as current officeholders, so this memo can be interpreted as a shot across the bow to Leffingwell's campaign. Either McCracken forces him to delay his announcement a month (reducing fundraising and campaigning time), or if Leffingwell calls the bluff, he establishes a legal position for a lawsuit changing the date of the special election. I don't believe there would be any case for disqualification of Leffingwell; this appears to be a doomsday device alleging that a Leffingwell entry next week would cost the city money.
How should Leffingwell respond? My thinking is that he should call the bluff and declare next week. If McCracken or an ally files a lawsuit against the city forcing the special election to be moved forward, it would be McCracken costing the city money, not Leffingwell. Furthermore, voters tend to dislike petty electoral games, so Brewster could suffer a double political hit.
Of course, this assumes that City Legal doesn't advise the Council in either direction. If the city attorney returns an opinion concurring with Brewster's legal position, then Leffingwell should comply and wait until next month. Times running out, so we should know shortly.
Section 11 - TERM OF OFFICE EXCEEDING TWO YEARS IN HOME RULE AND GENERAL LAW CITIES; VACANCIES
(a) A Home Rule City may provide by charter or charter amendment, and a city, town or village operating under the general laws may provide by majority vote of the qualified voters voting at an election called for that purpose, for a longer term of office than two (2) years for its officers, either elective or appointive, or both, but not to exceed four (4) years; provided, however, that tenure under Civil Service shall not be affected hereby; provided, however, that such officers, elective or appointive, are subject to Section 65(b), Article XVI, of this Constitution, providing for automatic resignation in certain circumstances, in the same manner as a county or district officer to which that section applies.
(b) A municipality so providing a term exceeding two (2) years but not exceeding four (4) years for any of its non-civil service officers must elect all of the members of its governing body by majority vote of the qualified voters in such municipality, and any vacancy or vacancies occurring on such governing body shall not be filled by appointment but must be filled by majority vote of the qualified voters at a special election called for such purpose within one hundred and twenty (120) days after such vacancy or vacancies occur. (Added Nov. 4, 1958; amended Nov. 6, 2001.)
For those of you who are disgusted about the excessive negativity of the Place 4 run-off, Girard Kinney, a local architect who has been very active in the urban planning debate, offers the following admonishment in an open letter posted to the Austin Neighborhood Council mailing list. Maybe in the future, candidates will fire their consultants and rely instead on reasoned debate. Wishful thinking, I know.
Disclaimer: Girard has endorsed Cid and was featured in one of his communications. After a month of agonizing over the decision, I voted for Laura on Tuesday.
AN OPEN LETTER TO CANDIDATES CID GALINDO AND LAURA MORRISON
Children, you are not playing well together!
My father always said; "There is so much good in the worst of us and so much bad in the best of us that it hardly behooves any of us to talk about the rest of us". I sure wish more of us observed the wisdom of this old adage. I am genuinely concerned that both of you, by focusing on perceived faults or weaknesses in the opponent have, in your effort to "get out the vote" in your constituencies have actually turned off many potential voters. I know this is not what your consultants are telling you, and certainly my evidence to support my assertion is anecdotal rather than scientific, but my instincts have served me well in the past and I am pretty sure that both of you have LOST votes because of your negative campaigning.
Cid; my experience with Laura over the last few years is that she is a smart, courteous, skillful and respectful person who would make a great Council Member. I worked with her closely when I headed the neighborhood's negotiations with the Redeemer Church in our neighborhood, and we both served on Councilemember McCracken's Commercial Design Standards ordinance (including the controversial VMU provisions therein) and while I often did not agree with her, I found her to be one of the smartest and most detail-oriented people in the room. Regarding your assertions about her position regarding the Mayor's initiative to try to achieve energy efficiency in existing housing stock, I was present when that Council Resolution was presented and I applaud the intent. While many of us, including Laura, may have made premature statements about what, if any, parts of the effort should be mandatory, there is no doubt in my mind that we MUST find a way to address the existing housing stock, and I do not see an effective alternative to an important piece of that task occurring at the time of the sale of existing residences. I do not support your attack of her for her support of this concept even though I know that you and many of your supporters believe that everything you have said is factually true. I have many criticisms of Laura's position on issues which form part of the reason that I personally believe that as a Council member you will actually benefit existing neighborhoods more than she. But I think that rather than focusing on her criticisms you, and we who support you, should acknowledge the remarkable work that she has done in the community and focus not on what we perceive as her weaknesses, but rather on why we think you are the better candidate.
Laura; although a city council position is NOT a partisan position, it is important to state that Cid is NOT a Republican; he is an Independent. And for the record, as Chair of the Transportation and Streetscapes Committee of the DAA of which I am a member, I watched (a then long-haired) Cid bring members of DAA and representatives of residents along MOPAC and TxDOT all to consensus (and believe me, both sides of the aisle were represented) around a plan for High Occupancy Vehicles. While that plan did not go forward (other events overtook it), I got to see Cid's skill in forging a solution that respected all sides of an issue, so that is why I was offended when I saw your labeling of him as a Republican. And while it is true that Cid does not have a Masters Degree in Planning, contrary to the implications of the information your campaign has published, ANYONE in Texas can legally call themselves a Planner (I personally would like to see this change and that there be a State License for this, but that is another issue).
I, for instance, call myself a planner, even though my only degrees are in architecture and graphics, and I think most people would agree that my role in the conception and evolution of Mueller, as the designer of Pfluger Bridge, and as Project Manager and JV Partner in the Great Streets consulting team, I can legitimately call myself an urban planner. To me, Cid's credentials in economics and business not only prepare him well to fill the void in financial expertise that will be created upon Councilmember Dunkerley's absence, but when combined with his work on the Sustainable Cities Initiative (which is the only realistic and comprehensive attempt to implement the Envision Central Texas preferred growth concepts) are far in excess of what is required to call him an urban planner. And the conflict of interest accusations are just silly. While I fault Cid for not just coming out of the closet as a developer, I know that political consultants regard that term as worse than child abuser. The fact is most of us live in houses built by developers, and the prices of the condos are a function of land prices and market demand. Developers like Cid, who go to the effort to make all of their projects green and energy efficient, and who create secondary dwellings that are affordable, should be lauded, not condemned.
Laura, I know that you believe that you have an idea how to manage growth, and I know that if you are elected you will strive to do that, but the fact is that it is Cid who, while still on the Planning Commission, brought forward both the Sustainable Cities Initiative AND the revisit of the Austin Tomorrow Comprehensive Plan, and for that he should be congratulated by all, including his political opponent.
OK, now get back out there in the yard and play fair!
In all the hoopla about the Austin city races, it was easy to miss out on all the excitement out in the suburbs. One of the most interesting races was for Leander ISD, where incumbent Pam Waggoner faced off against challenger Will Streit.
Waggoner made noise earlier this year when she became the Republican nominee to take on Donna Howard this November in TX House District 48 (I guess Ben Bentzin got the hint). Waggoner, a six year veteran of the school board, also chose to run for re-election (how's that for confidence?), citing her passion for education issues (Howard is also a former school board member for the Eanes district).
(More endorsements. - promoted by Karl-Thomas Musselman)
The League of Bicycling Voters, of which I'm Secretary, has endorsed three candidates after conducting a questionnaire and public forum process. Congratulations to Allen, Jennifer, and Robin on winning the endorsements of the biking community! Below is the press release.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 17, 2008
CONTACT:
Rob D'Amico, 627?1343
Austin's 'voice for bicyclists' endorses City Council candidates
The League of Bicycling Voters, after careful consideration of responses to a candidate questionnaire and questions at a public forum co-sponsored by the organization, has made the following endorsements for Austin City Council races.
Place 1: Allen Demling
Place 3: Jennifer Kim
Place 4: Robin Cravey
Comments for each race from Rob D'Amico, LOBV President:
"As Austin residents we know there are host of challenges and opportunities for our city that need to be addressed by the next City Council that stand apart from just encouraging bicycling. But we also know that bicycle transportation is the most effective and affordable solution to challenges like traffic congestion, declining air and water quality, increasing healthcare costs, skyrocketing public safety budgets and creating sustainable development, not to mention dependence on foreign oil supplies. With that in mind we looked for candidates who were willing to take the lead in promoting bicycling."
Place 1 "People say Allen Demling isn't a viable candidate, and we say 'bunk.' Demling's concentration on bicycle issues and his dedication to cycling every day on his commute make him a perfect fit for Austin's future. For us, the question isn't, 'Can Demling win?' The question is 'Should Demling win?" And the answer is a resounding, 'Yes.'"
Place 3 "Jennifer Kim 'gets it' when it comes to integrating bicycles into the transportation mix. She told bicyclists that she is ready and willing to use her experience and position on the council board to fight for bicycle-related funding."
Place 4 "Robin Cravey really stands out among all the candidates as the champion for bicyclists. He embraced several proposals to make bicycling safer and more viable, like our plan for downtown mobility and our commuter club concept, but he's also a well-rounded candidate who is city politics and knowledgeable about all the critical issues facing our region. Cravey also history of bicycling in Austin and supporting bicycle advocacy."
The League of Bicycling Voters is Austin's voice for bicyclists. LOBV is a nonprofit advocacy organization promoting decisions and more resources to increase the number of bicyclists in the Austin area.
Recently, the Texas Environmental Democrats of Austin (TED-A) sent a questionnaire to all candidates seeking office on the Austin City Council. We are pleased to report that every "major" candidate except one returned the questionnaire with very detailed and thoughtful responses. Our thanks go out to all the candidates who sacrifice time and treasure to serve the public good. To view the candidates' answers, please visit the TED Website.
We'd also like to invite the public to attend our combined candidate forum on Wednesday, March 26th. The forum will be held in conjunction with the South Austin Democrats, the South West Austin Democrats, the Capital Area Progressive Democrats, the Capital Area Asian American Democrats, the Capital City Young Democrats and perhaps a few others. It starts at 6:00pm and will be held at Gardner Betts, 2515 S Congress Ave.
I thought it might be interesting to get everyone's expectations and resulting conclusions for Tuesday's primary on record beforehand. This way, we can talk about the significance of the results in a rational way and avoid any after-the-fact spin doctoring.
Here is my bottom line:
If Hillary loses in Texas by more than 5 AND wins in Ohio by less than 5 (or loses), then I will personally concede, i.e. switch my support to Obama whether Hillary drops out or not. If Hillary does only slightly better than that, I'll consider switching but won't promise anything. If Hillary wins Texas, I'll stay in her camp until she says not to. I don't care about the other states.
I'm more interested in popular vote than delegates because there are more than enough super delegates to counteract caucus delegates.
How 'bout you? At what point will Hillary supporters concede the race? At what point will Obama supporters concede there still is a race?
California Rep. Darrell Issa, who has been tapped as chairman of the annual fundraising dinner, set a goal of raising $7.5 million for the event. He even pledged some of his own campaign cash if members failed to clear a recent hurdle. But House Republicans are falling well short in that goal.
According to numbers read during the Tuesday morning meeting, only 15 Republicans have met their pledged fundraising goal for the dinner. Another 42 have set a pledged target but failed to contribute the bulk of that money. Among them are Texas Reps. Mike Conaway and Pete Sessions and South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson, a source familiar with the fundraising totals said. An astonishing 142 members - almost three-fourths of the Republicans in the House - have failed even to set a fundraising target.
Interesting to see Red State Republicans having so much trouble meeting their targets. Republican Majority leader John Boehner is so frustrated he yelled at them to get off their "dead asses" and fundraise. But perhaps their problem isn't laziness, but the fact their getting their own asses handed to them by a bunch of blue asses -- the Democratic Party.
The party has struggled to emerge from its devastating losses in 2006 as senior members head for the exits and traditional donors buck the GOP in favor of the new Democratic majority. Some of those defections have sapped Republicans of their most powerful fundraisers, and remaining members have failed to fill that void as GOP lawmakers still grapple with life in the minority.
With the DCCC's $35.5 million to $6.4 million advantage over the NRCC, the Repubs should get used to that life, indeed.
The conventional wisdom has it that Barack Obama is running a positive, inspirational campaign that is uplifting millions of his supporters to a higher plane, transforming our nation's politics and eliminating partisanship once and for all. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton's cynical band of hangers-on, desperate for patronage, are willing to do and say anything to get elected and control the levers of raw power.
In fact, in a race defined by two progressives very close on issues, Krugman is surprised that there is venom at all:
The bitterness of the fight for the Democratic nomination is, on the face of it, bizarre. Both candidates still standing are smart and appealing. Both have progressive agendas (although I believe that Hillary Clinton is more serious about achieving universal health care, and that Barack Obama has staked out positions that will undermine his own efforts). Both have broad support among the party's grass roots and are favorably viewed by Democratic voters.
So why all the bile?
I won't try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I'm not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We've already had that from the Bush administration - remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don't want to go there again.
What's particularly saddening is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the application of "Clinton rules" - the term a number of observers use for the way pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent.
Krugman goes on to explain how Obama supporters are basically using Republican tactics and talking points to smear Hillary, such as comparing the bogus Whitewater "scandal" to the bogus outrage showed by Obamaites over the "LBJ comment".
These attacks are not just limited to the grassroots, either. Obama supporter and Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick employed the following Republican talking point over the weekend, "When it came to the war in Iraq one candidate listened to her pollster, the other listened to his conscience." So apparently, the Republicans were right: Hillary Clinton never cared about healthcare, women's rights, global warming, or improving public education -- she just did it because the polls said so.
The issue of Iraq continues to be the hammer in the Obama campaign toolbelt. This despite the fact that Obama has voted in virtual lockstep with Clinton on Iraq war funding since joining the Senate, and despite the fact that in 2004, Obama said he didn't know how he would've voted on the Iraq War if he had been in the Senate. But now is not the time for such subtleties, there's a campaign to win!
The press has also joined in on the Clinton bashing party. By the end of the Democratic primary, it is a possibility that the entire on-air staff of MSNBC will have been fired due to their vicious over-the-top treatment of Hillary Clinton. Between alleging her daughter a prostitute and devoting whole segments to her cleavage, American journalism has showed itself unworthy and unable of civilized discourse.
Back to Krugman, who pleads for a better campaign:
I'd like to see more moments like (Jewish groups denouncement of an attack on Obama), perhaps starting with strong assurances from both Democratic candidates that they respect their opponents and would support them in the general election.
