Postcards from Alaska

by: Triangulation of Death

Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 00:32 PM CDT

The Texas-based Liberty Legal Institute has failed to persuade an Alaska judge to block a legislative investigation into possible abuses of power by Alaska governor Sarah Palin, the Republican nominee for vice president. On Thursday Alaska Superior Court Judge Peter Michalski basically told Liberty Legal and its clients, five GOP state lawmakers, to take a hike:

"It is legitimately within the scope of the Legislature's investigatory power to inquire into the circumstances surrounding the termination of a public officer."

We told you last month that the Liberty Legal Institute, the legal arm of the Plano-based Free Market Foundation (itself the Texas affiliate of the far-right Focus on the Family) was helping Republican state lawmakers in a lawsuit designed to shut down the investigation into what has been dubbed "Troopergate." A bi-partisan legislative committee had voted in July to investigate whether Palin had improperly pressured state employees to fire her former brother-in-law, a state trooper. At first Palin said she would cooperate. After she became the Republican vice presidential nominee, however, she reversed her pledge and ordered aides not to obey subpoenas seeking their testimony.

By intervening in the case, Liberty Legal/Free Market Foundation essentially cast aside its paper-thin facade of nonpartisanship. In fact, Republicans - especially GOP presidential nominee John McCain's campaign - have been working furiously to stop the investigation. Investigators are expected to issue their findings next week, less than a month before the general election.

So how did Liberty Legal handle the smackdown? It turned to an old standby, bizarrely attacking gay families:

"Judge Michalski is the same judge who ruled in 1998 that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right, a decision subsequently overruled by a constitutional amendment approved by the voters of Alaska."

Clearly, Liberty Legal/Free Market Foundation has gays on the brain. In fact, the group is a reliable supporter of the most rabidly anti-gay politicians and causes in Texas. It also spends a lot of time (and costs taxpayers a lot of money) suing school districts in efforts to promote religion in public education. You can read more about this radical group in the appendices of the Texas Freedom Network Education Fund's annual State of the Religious Right reports.

So what's next for Liberty Legal now that it has failed to obstruct the investigation in Alaska? Time will tell, but our guess is Texas public schools will be on the group's radar again soon enough.

TSTA Suing TEA Over Back Door Voucher Program

by: Triangulation of Death

Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 00:28 AM CDT

Last year, the Texas House voted overwhelmingly to bar public funding for any private school voucher scheme. Apparently, Texas Education Agency Commissioner Robert Scott didn't get the memo.

Recently, TEA adopted a dropout prevention plan that would allow the agency "to fund nonprofit groups as an alternative [to public schools] to educate dropouts."

Since Commissioner Scott missed, forgot or ignored the Legislature's will, the Texas State Teachers Association is working to remind him via a court order.

"They couldn't push vouchers through the Legislature in an aboveboard way," said TSTA President Rita Haecker. "So they went through the back door to divert public dollars to private school programs, even though lawmakers warned them not to do so."

It's really no surprise that Scott is pushing vouchers - his former boss, Governor Rick Perry, has received a boatload of money from voucher sugardaddy James Leininger.

Following James Leininger's Money

by: Triangulation of Death

Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 04:36 PM CDT

Compared to two years ago, it appears that voucher sugardaddy James Leininger has pulled back a bit (so far) in his donations to candidates for state office. Leininger is the state's biggest financial supporter of private school voucher schemes. (You can read more about Leininger in a 2006 Texas Freedom Network Education Fund report on the religious right in Texas.) Vouchers take money from public schools to pay for tuition at private and religious schools.

Over the years Leininger has poured millions of dollars into the campaigns of pro-voucher Republicans, including current Texas Gov. Rick Perry. Leininger has funneled a lot of that money through political action committees. That strategy can give him and his hired hands more control over the campaigns of candidates he supports.

So far in 2007-08 election cycle, however, Leininger has given only about $815,000 to Republican candidates and PACs, according to reports available on the Texas Ethics Commission Web site. That compares to nearly $4 million Leininger had donated by this point in the 2005-06 cycle. More than $2.35 million of that money two years ago went to the Texas Republican Legislative Campaign Committee, a PAC that targeted five House incumbents for defeat in the Republican primaries because they opposed private school vouchers. Another $620,000 went to The Future of Texas Alliance PAC, which backed House Republican incumbents who supported vouchers.

Of course, Leininger's attempt to buy a Legislature that would finally pass a voucher scheme failed in 2006. He defeated only two anti-voucher Republican incumbents. In addition, a number of pro-voucher GOP incumbents - including then-House Public Education Committee chairman Kent Grusendorf, R-Arlington - lost their re-election bids.

Leininger hasn't fared much better this year. For the second time in a row, gobs of his money failed to unseat state Rep. Charlie Geren, R-Fort Worth. (Geren, a strong supporter of public schools, famously said two years ago that he wouldn't "whore for Leininger" and vote for vouchers.) This year Leininger gave $100,000 to Tom Annunziato's failed effort to defeat Geren. Annunziato's campaign got another nearly $70,000 from Empower Texans PAC, which itself has received $100,000 from Leininger.

Leininger also ponied up more than $70,000 for the failed re-election campaign of state Rep. Nathan Macias, R-Bulverde. Leininger bankrolled Macias' successful effort to unseat anti-voucher state Rep. Carter Casteel, R- New Braunfels in 2006. Macias, who also got about $80,000 this year from Empower Texans PAC, narrowly lost his Republican primary last March.

Although his spending so far is less than usual, we would be surprised if Leininger doesn't spend more money in support of pro-voucher candidates in the fall.

Cornyn's Comm. Dir. Should Learn to Spell

by: Triangulation of Death

Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 04:35 PM CDT

Just got this great e-mail from John Cornyn's campaign pimping their last anti-Noriega fundraising e-mail:

   Team:

   See note below from our communications director, thanks for what you have done in last 24 hours, let's keep it going.

   From: Kevin McLaughlin
   Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 1:40 PM
   To: Rob Jesmer
   Subject: Nutroots

   Rob-

   2 things;

   1) Our guys at the convention told us Noreiga and his out-of-state buddies spent the morning attacking Senator Cornyn

   2) according to finance team, the fact that Dean and Pelosi came in to shill for Noreiga really fired up our supporters the last 24 hours. We have raised well over 10K and I think we could another 10k if we send out the email below again.

   Talk soon,

   Kevin

You know, it might be a good idea to hire someone (or two someones, since Rob Jesmer, Cornyn's campaign manager didn't even correct the misspelling in the e-mail) who can actually spell your opponent's name. Especially your communications director.

As for the message . . . Noriega and the rest of the Netroots and Dem leadership who showed up bashed Cornyn!? STOP THE PRESSES! SOUND THE ALARM! TIP THE COW!

Anyway, I guess "Buck Smith"/David Beckwith must be earning his keep (and some Democratic schwag) by attending Netroots Nation.

More to the point, Kevin, you really need to learn how to (a) spell and (b) not make yourself look like an ass in the press (yes, I'm talking about that asinine comment about "Buck Smith" speaking for himself and all that other BS you pulled from that place beneath your nose that resembles an asshole when BOR outed Beckwith).

By the way, Kev: Since "Buck Smith" speaks for himself, why isn't he posting on BOR any more?

The Political Blogosphere: A Map

by: Triangulation of Death

Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 04:57 PM CDT

I found Capitol Annex and Kuff on it, but not BOR yet.

Help me search?

Looks Like Someone is Coopting Noriega's Military Theme

by: Triangulation of Death

Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:18 AM CDT

Just received an e-mail from Cornyn's campaign. Check out the new logo:

His staff should know that we've moved on to the digital pattern now:

Out. Of. Touch. 

Hillary's Military Lies

by: Triangulation of Death

Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:45 AM CDT

In another story, retold recently in Youngstown, Ohio, she describes a "young woman who lost her husband in Iraq, a lovely young woman who had a daughter."

"Here's what happened to her," Clinton said. "She was given $6,000. She was told to leave the [military] base within 90 days. She was told her daughter was no longer eligible for Army medical care. She was basically on her own. So I said, 'That's not right.' So we began to work to change what was really cruel - you lose your husband, you lose your wife, you lose your mom or your dad, and you're out, and nobody seemed to care."

Nice story. Too bad it's false.

In a 22 March 2008 story in The New York Times, death benefits given to military families are outlined:

Three years ago, advocates for military families succeeded in winning a significant expansion in survivor benefits, which include life insurance, a death gratuity, medical care and housing and education assistance.

. . .

In 2005, the so-called death gratuity - the sum given to survivors for an active-duty death - jumped to $100,000 from $12,420, and the military's group life insurance maximum rose to $400,000 from $250,000. Both are retroactive to October 2001, covering the nearly 4,500 service members who have been killed in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars since.

There are myriad other survivor benefits, too, many determined by specific circumstances. Joyce Wessel Raezer, chief operating officer of the National Military Family Association, said that a hypothetical widow of an Army corporal based at Fort Drum, in upstate New York, with three years of service and two young children would likely receive payments totaling $5,335 a month for the first year. In addition, a spouse would get free medical care for three years - the children into adulthood - and all would receive education assistance.

Through private companies, the Department of Veterans Affairs provides insurance beneficiaries the service of a professional financial planner for a year, but a spokesman said that only one in 10 families uses it.

So, let's see, Clinton said that:

  1. The wife was given $6,000. Huh? Any other time I would assume that was the basic death gratuity to cover funeral expenses, but that was over $12,000 before being increased to $100,000 three years ago. So, false.
  2. The wife was given 90 days to move off-base. Probably correct - for obvious reasons.
  3. She said the daughter was no longer eligible for military health care. Completely and utterly false. Not only is her daughter eligible for military health care until she's an adult, but the wife continues to receive it for three more years.

So she's either out-right lying or just doesn't know what the hell she's talking about - which she should because I'm certain the increase in death benefits had to be approved by the Senate.

This is what we want in a president?

Duck and cover! It's a sniper!

UPDATE: Hillary's campaign site notes that:

She cosponsored the Military Death Benefit Improvement Act to raise the military survivor benefit from $12,000 to $100,000.

So that's something.

Ray McMurrey on Immigration

by: Triangulation of Death

Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:42 PM CST

The subject of immigration is hot in the 2008 election, but immigration in the Americas is older than the United States itself. We should keep the emotion over this issue in perspective by understanding that the entire history of the Americas has been one of mass human migration. Moreover, it should be understood that the truth needs to be told to the American public. It appears both parties have a tendency to shade the truth, and I believe there is confusion where there should not be.

To begin with, we must admit that regarding immigration there are really two issues:

1. What do we do with those here?
2. What do we do in the future to control the border?

Let me first say that I have some experience with this issue, and my life experiences prepare me to deal with immigration and border issues. After graduation from college, I did what LBJ did - taught public school in south Texas. I lived on the Texas-Mexico border in Eagle Pass for seven years. I taught in a Title 1 school and lived in a colonia. I also married a local girl who is the daughter of migrant farm workers. My wife was born in an Oregon migrant camp while her parents did seasonal agricultural work picking sugar beets. The year was 1965. And her father's parents had been coming to the U.S. prior to that. Given my history, I have a very good understanding of border life and the complexities of the immigration issue.

I think Democrats are reluctant to address this issue for fear of losing Latino votes. This is where my experience and leadership come into play. My family members are immigrants and my children Latino. I can speak honestly about these issues. Immigrants and Latino citizens are respectful of the laws and understand the need to control the borders, just like everyone else.

With regard to those that are now here, we must admit that we have failed to enforce the laws on the books regarding immigration. From properly funding the Border Patrol to cracking down on companies hiring illegal immigrants, we did not do our job. That is why it is frustrating to hear Republicans call immigrants "criminals." In fact, the real criminal behavior was for those in authority to not enforce the law so they could "sell out" to agribusiness and commercial farming interests by providing them the cheapest labor possible, mostly through the use of Latin American immigrants. Not to mention the direct effect that had on the ability of family farmers to compete in the marketplace, thus leading to the decline of family farms.

Those that are here came because we allowed them through our own intentional inaction. They sought a better life for themselves like all who come to this great nation. Their families are intertwined with this nation to such a degree that it would be inhumane to impose a forced removal where roots have been planted - doing so would result in another Trail of Tears. I favor a legal pathway to citizenship for those that are here, but automatic amnesty is not the solution. The pathway should come with a cost. But that cost should be fair and dignified.

In the future we should neutralize the term "illegal" by providing a legal and open immigration policy to this country for law-abiding people to live and work. Our Latino brothers and sisters to the south are our closest neighbors and deserve to have "favored nation" status when considering immigration quotas.

We need to create legal and favorable conditions with Latin American countries so law-abiding people can legally enter our nation under a taxpayer identification system so all workers are documented and paying taxes. Labor leaders need to be at the table to ensure the integrity of American jobs and economic opportunity for American workers.

There is a law enforcement and security issue to the border that is fundamentally different than 15 years ago. We must acknowledge that the drug trade and terrorism are real dangers that bolster the need to monitor our borders.

I believe that with current security issues, this nation does have a responsibility to know who is entering and exiting the nation, as does any sovereign nation. I also believe it is appropriate to substantially increase the funding and salaries for our Border Patrol so they may really do the job we ask them to do. Rather than funds being spent building a wall, we should invest in our immigration enforcement agencies.

The major component of this debate is that Americans believe their government is willing and able to protect American security, American labor and American justice. Republicans are wrong to attack immigrants as criminals while they turn a blind eye and do not enforce the laws on the books, selling out to commercial agribusiness. The real crime is the failure of the American government to secure the border.

In closing, while we do have problems dealing with immigration, my overall faith in the strength of diversity is strong and I believe in the end we will be a stronger and more competent nation. We can do better, and I am ready to provide leadership on this issue as your next U.S. Senator.

O'Reilly Boycotters in Texas

by: Triangulation of Death

Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 07:19 PM CDT

The person (jamesg@...) who replied to my e-mail:

A) Knew nothing about the Internet. He thought my e-mail was a mailing list. Makes me wonder how they can set up "virtual offices" if they can't figure out basic e-mail.

B) Didn't believe me when I quoted and linked to the story about O'Reilly.

C) Responded repeatedly with asshole comments -- such as "give it a rest" and "you're not my customer." (And he's right. I never will be.)

I did tell him that I will be calling his corporate headquarters tomorrow to inform them of his stellar customer service skills.

I urge you to e-mail both the local franchise owners and the corporate headquarters of this business. They obviously don't understand capitalism.

Democratic Defense Policy: A Start

by: Triangulation of Death

Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 01:32 AM CDT

There is a dire need for the Democrats to issue a coherent defense policy — in general and specifically in regards to Iraq and Afghanistan. This diary is an attempt at formulating the beginnings of such a policy. Comments, suggestions, criticisms, et cetera are all welcome.

[I should note that the Center for American Progress has issued two documents outlining a “strategic redeployment” of U.S. troops in the Middle East. I’m currently reading the second version of this report (issued last month), but the earlier one (issued six months earlier) wasn’t particularly insightful or helpful.]

First, a timetable must be set. Yes, a timetable. Our standards for success should be appropriate, communicable and measurable. “As they stand up, we will stand down” may serve as a starting point for fleshing out such standards.