Damn -- the motion to remove the Delay Replacement Case to federal court won't be heard until June 26.

federal judge on Monday set a June 26 hearing for a Democratic Party lawsuit that attempts to block Republicans from moving ahead to replace former U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay on the November ballot.

Judge Sam Sparks left in place a temporary restraining order that expires Thursday, though he did not extend it. Sparks is expected to hear evidence and lawyers' arguments at the hearing.

Democrats went to court earlier this month to prevent the state Republican Party from replacing DeLay on the ballot. A state district judge blocked the process with the temporary order. Attorneys for the Republicans then had the case moved to federal court.

Though Republicans plan to initiate steps to fill the GOP vacancy on the ballot once the temporary order expires, the process wouldn't be complete by the time of the court hearing, said GOP lawyer Jim Bopp.

For example, the Harris County GOP precinct chairs will not meet until the evening of June 26, in order to select two other candidates for offices which have had vacancies occur since the primary. In theory, those of us fromt he Harris County portion of CD22 could select our elector that night -- if there is not a new restraining order in place by that time. But I do not know when the other counties will be able to meet and select electors.

Quite frankly, the Democrats' litigation strategy concerns me, if only because the delay may mean that the State Republican Executive Committee -- rather than the local precinct chairs -- may be the ones who decide the GOP candidate.

Posted by: Greg at 02:52 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 288 words, total size 2 kb.

I wish I had written this letter that appeared in today's Houston Chronicle.

Plame can blame her husband

REGARDING the Chronicle's June 15 editorial "Rove unleashed": Now let me be sure I have this right.

Karl Rove is dishonorable because he had a role in the administration's effort to counter the allegations made by Democratic partisan Joe Wilson.

In a time of war, Joe Wilson made charges, ultimately deemed to be false by a bipartisan report of the Senate Intelligence Committee, that the president had nefariously relied on faulty intelligence about Saddam Hussein's efforts to procure uranium from Niger.

The administration made an effort to educate media critics as to both the facts of the case and the questionable credentials of the person making the allegations.

The Chronicle repeats the canard that, in so doing, Rove "ruined the career of a valued expert on nuclear proliferation."

The suggestion here is that Wilson's wife, who got him the gig that led him to challenge the president's statement, was a covert CIA agent, and that the White House blew her cover.

Yet according to Wilson's own book, his wife had been stationed in the United States since 1977.

Since she clearly was no covert operative, it is hard to see the basis for the statement that her career was ruined.

If anyone is responsible for ruining her career, it is her husband.

If you get a job through nepotism and then choose to lie about your findings in order to wage partisan battle against the president in a time of war, it is likely that these facts will eventually come to light.

Ultimately, this editorial weakens the Chronicle's own credibility, as the paper is quick to criticize Rove and the Bush administration for "leaking" factual information that supports the administration's war on terror, but it also is quick to publish the leaks that lead to exposure of real covert efforts that make us all safer in this age of terrorism.

IRA L. WINSTEN Houston

Yep, that sums it all up very nicely.

Posted by: Greg at 09:41 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 358 words, total size 2 kb.