After living the final chapter for the last several months, I have no interest in reading anything written by Tom DeLay.

Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, with his career in elective office behind him, said Thursday he has a deal to publish a book.

"This is a book that's going to be the history of my career, how it furthered the conservative cause, with my spiritual walk and what I think the conservative cause ought to do next," DeLay, a born-again Christian, told The Associated Press.

DeLay said he'll explain how "everything I've done in my career furthered the conservative cause" and helped change the culture of Washington.

DeLay said the working title is "No Retreat, No Surrender: The American Passion of Tom DeLay." He declined to reveal how much he'll be paid. "Not as much as I wanted," he quipped.

Yeah, Tom, right -- you certainly have done a damn fine job of advancing conservatism here in CD22. Just look at the mess you left behind in the wake of yiur decision to quit your final run for Congress. Just shut up and nove on.

Won't he ever go away!

Posted by: Greg at 11:07 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 198 words, total size 1 kb.

Well, this sure qualifies.

Congresswoman Katherine Harris holds a double-digit lead in the race for Florida's Republican U.S. Senate nomination less than a week before the primary, according to a poll released Thursday.

However, the poll also indicates that a large number of Republicans haven't settled on a candidate, and about a third of those supporting Harris said they still might change their minds.

"If Rep. Harris had only one opponent she might be in deep trouble," said Peter Brown, assistant polling director for the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, which conducted the poll last week. "But having three candidates splitting the anti-Harris vote is a major plus for her."

Harris was favored by 38 percent of 317 likely Republican voters.

William McBride, a 34-year-old attorney, was supported by 22 percent; retired Navy admiral LeRoy Collins Jr. of Tampa was backed by 11 percent; and Peter Monroe, a real estate developer from Safety Harbor, received 3 percent.

The winner of the Sept. 5 primary faces incumbent U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson in the November general election.

Given this miraculous lead by a poorly run campaign, I'm almost willing to consider the possibility that she has backing from "the highest level" -- and I don't mean Dubya.

Oh my God!
Where's my make-up?

Posted by: Greg at 11:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 214 words, total size 2 kb.

Former Congressman Nick Lampson (Carpetbagger - Beaumont-to-Stafford) has decided that it is just too much trouble to face the voters on November 7 in the special election -- because they just aren't smart enough to figutre out how to vote for him if there is a Republican other than Tom DeLay on the ballot.

Nick Lampson, the Democratic nominee to succeed former U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay when Congress convenes next year, said Thursday that he has decided not to run in the special election for DeLay's unexpired term.

Lampson said he wants to limit confusion at the ballot box, since the special election will coincide with the general election Nov. 7, when only two months will remain on DeLay's term.

Got that -- presenting himself in a race with a Republican candidate on teh ballot will cause confusion for the voters -- who just might be so confused that they vote their true choice, which is a Republican candidate.

So while Nick Lampson promised that he would run in the special election when the entire CD22 saga began this spring, now he has broken that committment to the people of CD22 -- which leads me to question what other committments he will break if elected. I'm bettting the first will be his "promise" not to vote for Nacy Pelosi for Speaker of the House.

But then again, maybe he is counting on the people of CD22 to be too stupid to remember his lies in 2008 if he manages to defeat Libertarian Bob Smither and write-in Republican Shelley Sekula-Gibbs -- who he is too cowardly to face head-to-head on the special election ballot.

You mean I'd have to face a Republican!

More at Texas Safety Forum and Fort Bend Now.

OPEN TRACKBACKING: Samantha Burns, Stuck On Stupid, Bacon Bits, Third World County, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, Dumb Ox, Adam's Blog, Is It Just Me?, Random Yak, Median Sib, Selective Amnesia, Stop the ACLU, Basil’s Blog; Comedian Jenée: People are Idiots , Woman Honor Thyself, Conservative Cat, Church and State, bRight and Early, Right Wing Nation; Jo’s Cafe, MacBro’s Page, Leaning Straight Up; The Amboy Times; Assorted Babble, NIF, Imagine Kitty, Oblogatory Anecdotes, The Uncooperative Blogger

Posted by: Greg at 10:48 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 386 words, total size 5 kb.

Given that George W. Bush has been blamed by Democrats for high gas prices, will they acknowledge that he is equally responsible for this development?

he recent drop in prices at the pump could pick up steam, driving gasoline sharply lower in coming months.

"I'd say $2 to $2.50," said Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst at the Oil Price Information Service. "Once you get past Sept. 15, it's really a downhill game."

Kloza said so far the average cost of a gallon of gas peaked this year at $3.036 on Aug. 10 and has come down largely thanks to diminishing hurricane fears.

"There's just nothing happening in the tropics, and the market had priced in all sorts of calamities," he said.

The motorist organization AAA reported a nationwide average of $2.82 Tuesday, the lowest since April 20.

Online gasoline price survey site Gasbuddy.com shows Wednesday's national average at $2.80.

Another analyst pointed to a 60-cent drop in wholesale and spot prices the past few weeks, noting consumers should see a similar drop in retail prices in the coming few weeks as the decline works its way through the market.

The drop in wholesale and spot prices would translate to retail gasoline prices of around $2.50 to $2.60 a gallon, analysts said.

"The levels that were in place were never justified to begin with," said Mark Gilman, an analyst with The Benchmark Co. "This is a bit of a return to reality."

Gilman said retail gasoline prices of around $2 a gallon by Thanksgiving were certainly possible, although not likely.

Gas prices dropping significantly -- possibly to $2.00 a gallon. What an accomplishment!

And while we are at it, given that he took the blame for last year's hurricane season, I assume that Democrats will also credit him with successfully decreasing the number of storms this year -- and the fact that their impact on the US has been minimal.

And if the president's detractors will not credit him with these developments, will they be honest enough to admit that increasing gas prices and the 2005 hurricane season were both beyond his control as well -- and that they were dishonest in blaming him for either?

Posted by: Greg at 02:33 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 375 words, total size 2 kb.

1 LimeWire, Mercy Medical Center In Canton Oh, Mercy Medical Center In Canton Oh, http://palacios.dragbikecentral.com/ Mercy Medical Center In Canton Oh, nsm,

Posted by: Rolando at Wed Jan 7 01:50:47 2009 (nwpMY)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

SInce the beginning of the CD22 saga last April, when Ton Delay announced his impending resignation, there has been one candidate who I have considered a joke. His name is Donald Richardson, and he is a retired Major who made a career in the Air Force. He'll tell you that at every opportunity, like he believes it makes him somehow superior to the rest of the candidates who sought the GOP nomination. He spend a lot of time talking about honor and honesty and integrity. He also admitted that he had not voted Republican in years. Frankly, most of us involved in the process considered the man to be a joke.

I finally began to gain some respect for Richardson when he came to the August 17 GOP meeting that selected Shelley Sekula-Gibbs. He spoke well and sincerely. Most importantly, he agreed to withdraw his write-in candidacy in favor of the choice of the precinct chairs if he was not chosen.

Well, guess what -- DON RICHARDSON IS A LIAR.

In yet another surprise in the race for Congressional District 22, there will be two Republican write-in candidates running against Democrat Nick Lampson and Libertarian Bob Smither.

On Tuesday – the deadline for withdrawing or registering as a write-in – Houston City Councilwoman Shelley Sekula-Gibbs traveled to Austin to file her papers, as expected.

But unexpectedly, by the end of the day former Republican congressional candidate and Houston businessman Don Richardson did not ask the Texas Secretary of StateÂ’s office to remove his name as a write-in candidate.

The move threatens to further confuse voters in what has already been an extremely complicated congressional campaign. And having two GOP write-in candidates in the race may jeopardize funding from national Republican Party sources.

Contacted at his home Tuesday night, Richardson said he is still in the race despite telling GOP officials and precinct chairs at an Aug. 17 gathering in Pearland that he would drop out.

At that meeting, some 83 precicnt chairs in CD-22 voted to support Sekula-Gibbs as an unofficial Republican write-in candidate, and party officials urged other GOP candidates – including Richardson and Sugar Land Mayor David Wallace – to withdraw from the race.

At the Pearland gathering, Texas GOP Chairman Tina Benkiser “got up and said the Republican National Committee would put up $4 million if and only if” there were a single write-in candidate in the race, Richardson said.

In that case, he said, he would withdraw and allow Sekula-GibbsÂ’ campaign to benefit from the funding.

But the next morning, he called an official at the RNC in Washington, D.C. “I said put it in writing” that $4 million would be available to the single GOP candidate running as a write-in against Lampson, Richardson said.

He didnÂ’t hear back. On Friday, Richardson said, he sent a fax to RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman, to the RNC official to whom heÂ’d originally spoken, and to Benkiser.

“I said look, if you’ll put it in writing about the $4 million and refund my campaign expenses…I will withdraw,” Richardson said. “I haven’t heard from anybody. So my name is still on the ballot.”

In other words, after telling the precinct chairs he would withdraw, he decided to add conditions and ultimatums to his promise. That is the sign of a man who is dishonest, dishonorable, and a disgrace to the uniform in which he served. Indeed, is character has significantly more in common with that of Tom DeLay than he would care to admit -- he has placed his own ego above the good of the voters of CD22 and the Republican Party. I'd argue that he has proven what many of us have suspected from the beginning of this process -- that he is a political opportunist whose record shows that he is not now a epublican and has not been one for years.

To borrow a phrase from an earlier era, Don Richardson is a miserable poltroon.

Posted by: Greg at 02:25 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 671 words, total size 4 kb.

Now that the identity of the Plamegate leaker (Richard Armitage) has become public, the matter should be just about over. All that remains is for President Bush to take some action to deal with the fact that the rogue investigation went on for years despite the fact that the identity of the leaker as known very early on and it was clear that there was no violation of the law.

I like these suggestions.

IÂ’m so livid at this tangible and intangible harm that I cannot imagine that the President doesnÂ’t share my fury at such damaging perfidy. If I were advising him, hereÂ’s what IÂ’d tell him:

(1) He should have Attorney General Gonzales report to him everything the Department knows of the Armitage revelations and when they occurred to ascertain whether any of the Isikoff-Corn report is false.

2) Former Secretary Powell should be summoned and asked when he learned of the Armitage admission and why he failed to report this to him.

(3) If the reports that he knew in September 2003 that Armitage was the leaker prove true, the President should publicly say that he is deeply disappointed in the conduct of the former State Department officials, that he doesnÂ’t question their belief that the Armitage leaks were inadvertent but that there failure to notify him of those leaks was inexcusable.

(4) If the facts indicate that former Attorney General Ashcroft and Comey knew who NovakÂ’s source was, the President should indicate his disappointment in them for having yielded to the press frenzy in appointing a special prosecutor rather than simply having the courage to tell what happened and why.

(5) He should express regret to the country for this unnecessary and longstanding distraction occasioned by these failures.

(6) He should express special regret to Scooter Libby and his family who have been forced to endure so much for no reason whatsoever.

(7) Finally, he should express disappointment in the unprofessional conduct of the Special Prosecutor who misled the public and the Courts, among other things, and he should announce that he is instructing the Atttorney General to dismiss Fitzgerald and drop the case against Libby.

I'd personally take matters a bit further -- I'd suggest a full pardon for Libby, whose "crime" appears to be nothing more than a discrepancy between his memory and written records of events that happened at least two years earlier.

Heck -- I wonder if there is a basis for a special prosecutor to investigate the cover-up of the leaker's identity by State Department (and possibly Justice Department) officials, and the prosecutorial abuses of Patrick Fitzgerald. And when the indictments are handed down against those who have perpetrated this fraud on the American people, it will be a Merry Fitzmas indeed.

Posted by: Greg at 11:25 AM | Comments (157) | Add Comment
Post contains 477 words, total size 3 kb.

Looks like we will have TWO congressional elections in CD22 on November 7.

Perry Calls Special Elections for DeLay, Luna and Madla Seats on Nov. 7

AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry today ordered special elections to be held concurrently with the Nov. 7 general election for the U.S. congressional seat vacated by Congressman Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, who has resigned and removed his name from the ballot; and for state Rep. Vilma Luna, D-Corpus Christi, and state Sen. Frank Madla, D-San Antonio, both of whom have resigned their positions in the Texas Legislature.

In his proclamation setting the special election for DeLayÂ’s seat, Perry noted that the U.S. Constitution requires that a special election be held and state law requires that it be held on the next uniform state election date, which is Nov. 7. Delay represented the 22nd Congressional District, which consists of parts of Brazoria, Fort Bend, Galveston and Harris counties.

Luna represents the Texas House of Representatives District No. 33, which consists of part of Nueces County. Madla represents Texas State Senate District No. 19, which consists of Bandera, Brewster, Crockett, Culberson, Edwards, Hudspeth, Jeff Davis, Kinney, Loving, Maverick, Medina, Pecos, Presidio, Real, Reeves, Sutton, Terrell, Uvalde, Val Verde, Ward, Winkler and parts of Bexar and El Paso counties.

Candidates who want to place their names on the ballot for DeLayÂ’s, LunaÂ’s or MadlaÂ’s district must file with the Secretary of state by 5 p.m. Friday, Sept. 1.

This creates all sorts of interesting possibilities.

Will additional GOP candidates other than designated write-in candidate Dr. Shelley Sekula-Gibbs try to jump into the race? Or will the Houston City Councilwoman have a clear shot at Nick Lampson? Will the presence of two races help her or hurt her in the write-in portion of the campaign? And if she wins the unexpired portion of DeLay's term (about two months),beating Lampson, will she become the undisputed front-runner in 2008, based upon having beaten lampson in a race for which she was listed on the ballot?

This makes everything quite interesting, in a year in which things have been interesting for some time.

Posted by: Greg at 11:28 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 360 words, total size 2 kb.

Don’t you just love the vile stuff that shows up on “liberal” and “progressive” websites these days. The KOSsacks and Dummies are venomous, and there is plenty of HuffPoison over at Aarriana’s place, but the neuro-toxins are on display among the “peace-loving and tolerant” affiliated with MoveOn.Org.

So no doubt the media and the Left will soon turn their attention to the vicious anti-Semitism the followers and members of a political organization that donates millions to Democratic candidates and uses the Web to whip up support for its policies.

I am referring to Moveon.org; an entity that claims it is merely the vehicle of "real Americans — from carpenters to stay-at-home moms to business leaders — we work together to realize the progressive vision of our country's founders." To the extent that Moveon.org is a reflection of its membership, it is also a reflection of the opinions and sentiments it shares about its fellow Americans and citizens of the world. And boy do the Moveon folks hate Jews.

* * *

After Sen. Joe Lieberman lost the Democratic primary in Connecticut, one Moveon member stated: "Jew Lieberman first step. Corporate Clinton will be next. Impeachment of BushCo will be third." This one came in with 95 percent of Moveon members responding approving the "Jew Lieberman" post. (Moveon helpfully records the percent of people agreeing with each post.)

Many postings creatively connect the need to eliminate Jewish influence with the goal of impeaching President Bush: Here's a typical one, which also received a high approval rating:

"I was reading some where someone posting about how Israel has lost world respect because of their murderous rampage throughout Lebanon?

Talk about loss of respect? What do you think the rest of the world thinks of ZioUSA now after seeing the BushCo spectacle, with Rice & Bolton flailing in the wind for the Zionazis against all world opinion?

Loss of respect is putting it mildly.

Impeachment of Bush is the only remedy."

Yeah, there is Bush plenty of Bush Derangement Syndrome at work, but the really vile stuff is the anti-Semitism. Calling a respected senator “Jew Lieberman” really crosses a line in this context, because it is premeditated and there was the option to edit and moderate the bigotry within. But the Democrats and media do not denounce this – though they were quick to pounce on a congressman several years back when, in a slip of the tongue which was immediately retracted, he referred to a certain homosexual congressman as “Barney Fag”. Or, as the article points out, there is the stupid “Macaca” comment of George Allen – a slur so obscure that I at one point was willing to believe that there was nothing to it, but an ongoing controversy which continues to be the fodder for political commentary and late-night humor.

I am personally struck by this comment.

"Why are the Jews so Jew-y?"

Those damn Jews – they are just so Jew-like. What next? A complaint that African-Americans are too “nigger-y”? Come on!

America has striven to slay the balrog of bigotry for many decades. Our most shining moment as a nation was the civil rights movement and the strength with which most Americans rejected such hatred as contrary to our national ethos. The Democrats, long the party of slavery, segregation, and the KKK, rejected its heritage of hate and sought to join the GOP in supporting freedom and equality of opportunity and rights for all Americans. Yet today it seems clear that a perverse pride in prejudice has taken hold in the activist wing of the Democrat party, re-embracing the night-riding nastiness of a bygone era.

And yet the decent people within the Democrat Party – and the media – stand by in silence while this horrifying freak-show continues to gain ascendancy on the Left. Dare they speak out? Or are the too filled with fear – or too much in agreement – to denounce this dangerous dogma of destruction?

Posted by: Greg at 11:05 AM | Comments (213) | Add Comment
Post contains 677 words, total size 4 kb.

Well, the Washington Post has finally caught up with Newsweek and most of the blogosphere. Richard Armitage outed Valerie Plame.

The leak of information about an undercover CIA employee that provoked a special prosecutor's investigation of senior White House officials came from then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage, according to a former Armitage colleague at the department.

Armitage told newspaper columnist Robert D. Novak in the summer of 2003 that Valerie Plame, the wife of a prominent critic of the Iraq war, worked for the CIA, the colleague said. In October of that year, Armitage admitted to senior State Department officials that he had made the remark, which was based on a classified report he had read.

Gee, didn't I write about this on Sunday?

However, there is one interesting tidbit about the Bush Derangement Syndrome-afflicted Left.

"Just because Armitage did this on his own, earlier, doesn't mean that there wasn't a White House conspiracy to 'out' Valerie [Plame] Wilson. We don't think it affects the case," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, the group pressing the lawsuit.

In other words, never let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory -- or a politicall motivated lawsuit.

Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum tries to keep the anti-Bush fires burning, too.

Posted by: Greg at 10:21 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 237 words, total size 2 kb.

Speaking as a GOP precinct chair in CD22, all I can say is that we are just going to have to work harder than usual to win.

The Texas Republican Party establishment has rallied around a single candidate, Houston City Councilwoman Shelley Sekula-Gibbs, in their unusual write-in campaign to salvage the 22nd Congressional District seat vacated in June by Tom DeLay, the former House majority leader.

But the extreme rarity of successful write-in campaigns for Congress and the presence of a solid Democratic nominee on the ballot in former Rep. Nick Lampson has prompted CQPolitics.com to change its rating on the 22nd District race to Leans Democratic from No Clear Favorite.

The GOP faces a world of trouble in this race because of a serious miscalculation on the part of DeLay and his party colleagues.

There is a strong commitment on the part of local Republicans to hold this seat, and with enough work we will be able to do it. At the same time, i ad mit that we have no easy task before us, despite having a good candidate for office who can be contrasted with DeLay as having no hint of scandal associated with her andnot being the candidate of the Fort Bend power structure that produced him. At the same time, she contrasts with Lampson by bing ideologically in tune witht he district and having lived here for the last two decades -- while Lampson carpetbagged into the district within the last year after most of his life near the Louisiana border in Beaumont.

Still, I understand the rating change -- write-in campaigns are an uphill battle.

Posted by: Greg at 10:06 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 279 words, total size 2 kb.

And here we’ve all been told that this quit being an asset in seeking the Democrat presidential nomination 150 years ago.

I guess Joe Biden didn’t get the memo.

Biden dismissed the notion that he was a "Northeastern liberal" who would have a poor showing in the South against other likely contenders such as Virginia Gov. Mark Warner and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, the 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee.

"Better than anybody else," Biden said, when asked on "Fox News Sunday" to rate his chances of winning Southern states.

"You don't know my state," he said. "My state was a slave state. My state is a border state. My state has the eighth-largest black population in the country. My state is anything from a Northeast liberal state."

I am, to say the least, stunned. How big a screw-up does Biden have to make before the Democrats renounce and condemn him – and before he quits being treated like a credible candidate for any office.

And, as I often ask, what would be the reaction of the media if a comment like that came out of a Republican?

Posted by: Greg at 09:33 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 198 words, total size 1 kb.

And here weÂ’ve all been told that this quit being an asset in seeking the Democrat presidential nomination 150 years ago.

I guess Joe Biden didnÂ’t get the memo.

Biden dismissed the notion that he was a "Northeastern liberal" who would have a poor showing in the South against other likely contenders such as Virginia Gov. Mark Warner and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, the 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee.

"Better than anybody else," Biden said, when asked on "Fox News Sunday" to rate his chances of winning Southern states.

"You don't know my state," he said. "My state was a slave state. My state is a border state. My state has the eighth-largest black population in the country. My state is anything from a Northeast liberal state."

I am, to say the least, stunned. How big a screw-up does Biden have to make before the Democrats renounce and condemn him – and before he quits being treated like a credible candidate for any office.

And, as I often ask, what would be the reaction of the media if a comment like that came out of a Republican?

Posted by: Greg at 09:33 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 206 words, total size 1 kb.

By the end of the first week of October, 2003, investigators knew the identity of the individual who leaked the identity of non-covert CIA employee Valerie Plame in violation of no law. Furthermore, this information was made available to Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald when he was appointed to that position in December, 2003.

It was Richard Armitage, a well-known gossip and moderate opponent of Bush policy in the Middle East.

In the early morning of Oct. 1, 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell received an urgent phone call from his No. 2 at the State Department. Richard Armitage was clearly agitated. As recounted in a new book, "Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War," Armitage had been at home reading the newspaper and had come across a column by journalist Robert Novak. Months earlier, Novak had caused a huge stir when he revealed that Valerie Plame, wife of Iraq-war critic Joseph Wilson, was a CIA officer. Ever since, Washington had been trying to find out who leaked the information to Novak. The columnist himself had kept quiet. But now, in a second column, Novak provided a tantalizing clue: his primary source, he wrote, was a "senior administration official" who was "not a partisan gunslinger." Armitage was shaken. After reading the column, he knew immediately who the leaker was. On the phone with Powell that morning, Armitage was "in deep distress," says a source directly familiar with the conversation who asked not to be identified because of legal sensitivities. "I'm sure he's talking about me."

Armitage's admission led to a flurry of anxious phone calls and meetings that day at the State Department. (Days earlier, the Justice Department had launched a criminal investigation into the Plame leak after the CIA informed officials there that she was an undercover officer.) Within hours, William Howard Taft IV, the State Department's legal adviser, notified a senior Justice official that Armitage had information relevant to the case. The next day, a team of FBI agents and Justice prosecutors investigating the leak questioned the deputy secretary. Armitage acknowledged that he had passed along to Novak information contained in a classified State Department memo: that Wilson's wife worked on weapons-of-mass-destruction issues at the CIA. (The memo made no reference to her undercover status.) Armitage had met with Novak in his State Department office on July 8, 2003—just days before Novak published his first piece identifying Plame. Powell, Armitage and Taft, the only three officials at the State Department who knew the story, never breathed a word of it publicly and Armitage's role remained secret.

Fitzgerald continued his investigation for a additional two years, creating perjury traps for individuals who he knew had no connection to the leak. In the end, only one individual was indicted, on charges that could well stem from a faulty memory rather than intentional criminal activity. Armitage walked away unscathed, and continues to lack the cojones to admit his role publicly -- and allowed the Bush administration to suffer from close to three years of acusations of malfeasance which have undermined the trust of some segments of the American Body Politic.

And while we are at it, let us note that this should forever remove any notion that Colin Powell is a stand-up guy and a straight-shooter. He allowed Armitage to stay on at the State Department for some time after the leak, never publicly disclosed the identity of the leaker, and also permitted the left-wing spin to undermine the Bush Administration. His actions were disgraceful, dishonorable, and unpatriotic.

UPDATE: Make this one reason to not support John McCain. He's got both Armitage and Powell on his team. If McCain has any integrity, he will dump them both.

ADDITIONAL COVEAGE AT Captain's Quarters. Sister Toldjah, Unalienable Right, USS Neverdock, Hot Air, Old War Dogs

UPDATE -- 8/30/2006: Armitage admits guilt.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT: Stop the ACLU, Wizbang, Samantha Burns, Is It Just Me?, Adam's Blog, Bacon Bits, Bullwinkle Blog, Stuck on Stupid, Conservative Cat, Third World County, Blue Star Chronicle, Right Nation, Uncooperative Blogger, Right Wing Nation, Woman Honor Thyself

Posted by: Greg at 09:05 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 704 words, total size 6 kb.

Every now and then, you just need a little bit of the weird to make people take politics more seriously -- and less seriously.

In Texas this year, we have Kinky Friedman doing exactly that.

Many people continue to laugh at the jokes, one-liners and other quotable quotes still being delivered by the Clown Prince of the Texas governor's race. But at what point, if any, does the laughter give way to something else?

Some of Kinky Friedman's quips are funny (at least the first two or three times you hear them). Some are funny and outrageous, as is the nature of satire, while others are mostly outrageous, and anything but politically correct.

Friedman, so far, has been able to operate without the PC restraints of most political figures, probably because he is viewed as more of an entertainer or self-promoter than a politician, as a protest candidate who only a handful of people, if that many, expect to be the next governor.

Without much of a political program to promote, he simply performs the role of Kinky.

What could have been a simple refusal to apologize to Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn, the other independent candidate, over a recent campaign flap about ethics prompted Friedman, instead, to challenge the PC issue head-on.

"It's meaningless," he told R.G. Ratcliffe, an Austin bureau reporter for the Houston Chronicle and the San Antonio Express-News.

"It's politically correct these days to apologize to the Indians and apologize to the Hawaiians for taking their land, apologize to the African-Americans for dealing with them as slaves and on and on without end. It's a little late in the game to go around apologizing and thinking everything's going to be OK."

Some of what the man says makes sense. Some of it does anything but.

But when you see the number of Kinky stickers around Texas, I sometimes wonder if we might not see the man pull a Jesse Ventura style victory this November. After all, the governor is alientaing the GOP base by stacking his property tax commission with opponents of property tax relief and leaving off the leading expert on the subject, our state comptroller is mounting a quixotic independent campaign, and the Democrats couldn't find a legitimate candidate for office so they picked a thrid-rater who would have been censured by the House Ethics committee if he hadn't been thrown out of office int eh Democrat primary.

After all, there is something to be said for a guy whose campaign slogan is "Why The Hell Not?"

Posted by: Greg at 05:53 AM | Comments (95) | Add Comment
Post contains 438 words, total size 3 kb.

The Houston Chronicle today offers a an article on the Shelley Sekula-Gibbs campaign.

As she begins her uphill campaign for Congress, City Councilwoman Shelley Sekula-Gibbs is taking heart in hills she already has climbed to earn the long-shot Republican assignment.

Her emergence as the GOP's only hope to retain the seat vacated by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay resulted from hard work and perseverance, with help from luck and circumstances.

"There is some truth to that, because there were so many iterations during this process," Sekula-Gibbs said. "It was amazing and imperfect, but nevertheless decisive. No one could have predicted the outcome. But I was determined to stay the course and be the Republican choice if they wanted me."

And it has been an uphill battle from day one. I was an early supporter, though I will concede that I gave a hard look at all the possible options following the decision that the GOP could not replace Tom Delay on the ballot. Still, I have never wavered from my perspective that Shelley that Shelley was and is the best available Republican candidate for this Republican district -- a conservative with a solid record and no hint of ethical impropriety who was willing to work with the party to mount an effective campaign.

That was a contrast with her major opponent in the waning days of the selection process.

And frankly, I don't get the large amount of space devoted to Shelley's failed opponent. He never had significant support outside of Sugar land, and had spent the entire process antagonizing the state party, and the harris COunty GOP in particular. At no point did that candidate express any willingness to meet with the representatives of the largest county in his district as a group. We were expected to come to him, individually, on his turf and his terms. This stands in sharp contrast to Shelley's strategy of reaching out to precinct chairs in all four counties, holding events in each and making herself available to virtually any group in the counties that wished to hear from her.

I encourage folks to read this article to find out why Shelley Sekula-Gibbs is our candidate, even as a write-in -- and why she should be the choice of voters in CD22

Posted by: Greg at 03:59 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 386 words, total size 2 kb.

Look at these numbers for the five most closely watched Senate races -- GOP candidates listed first, and previous polling numbers in parentheses.

Missouri : 46-44 (46-47)

Rhode Island: 43-42 (38-44)

Ohio : 42-45 (41-49)

Montana: 47-47 (42-43)

Pennsylvania: 39-44 (42-4

We lead in two, are tied in one, and are close in the other two. That means that all are serious prospects to be won by a Republican -- if one considers Lincoln Chaffee to be a Republican.

Posted by: Greg at 07:05 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 87 words, total size 1 kb.

Just as the disgusting Phelps Klan crosses a line of decency with their reprehensible protests at the funerals of slain servicemen and women (and their earlier protests at the funerals of homosexuals), a group of anti-Bush cretins are crossing a line this weekend. They are picketing and protesting a wedding because the President is attending. The groom is a member of the extended Bush family.

Antiwar groups affiliated with Sheehan plan to rally as close as they can get to the wedding at St. Ann's Episcopal Church, near Walker's Point. "Join with people of conscience to call for an end to the war in Iraq and say NO! to the Bush Agenda," reads an online recruitment pitch for the demonstration.

Excuse me – people of conscience and decency, regardless of their views on the war or other political issues, do not seek to mar the wedding day of a couple with a protest directed at one of the guests.

But then again, these are the same sort of folks who held signs outside of Walter Reed Hospital that read to taunt wounded veterans. They have no shame, no decency, and no conscience.

UPDATE: Scum!

Posted by: Greg at 11:13 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 206 words, total size 2 kb.

If so, please remit the amount you believe you are underpaying to the following address.

Until you do, please refrain from suggesting that taxes are not high enough.

Posted by: Greg at 11:34 AM | Comments (26) | Add Comment
Post contains 63 words, total size 1 kb.

For shame, Senator Clinton!

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is holding up renewal of the primary federal law that battles HIV/AIDS, the 1990 Ryan White Act, causing a rift among activists on the subject and threatening approval of the legislation this year.

Clinton (D-N.Y.) said she opposes the measure because it would lower funding for her home state. But some AIDS groups also see broader political motives at work. Other states that would lose out include California, Florida and Illinois -- all places Clinton would need to win if she seeks the presidency. Her critics also note that many of the states that would receive higher funding under the new formula are rural and Southern, which tend to vote Republican.

Clinton was the sole vote against the Ryan White Act reauthorization bill that passed the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions in May. Ever since, she and other senators have been negotiating to find a consensus that would allow the measure to pass by acclamation before Congress's scheduled adjournment at the end of September. But a compromise has not been found.

"With a bipartisan bill like this, and with time limited, we want to have something that would go through without objection," said Michael Mahaffey, spokesman for the health committee. But, he added, Clinton "objects to the bill in the form passed out of committee."

Observers note that her objection is to a new funding formula which will give more funding to Southern and rural states, areas where AIDS is increasing at a faster rate than in other parts of the country. Interestingly enough, she is seeking to preserve extra funding for states that she needs to win the Democrat nomination and the presidency in 2008.

Even AIDS activists are critical.

Asked why Clinton might countenance lower funding for Southern and rural states, Michael Weinstein, president of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, the nation's largest community-based HIV/AIDS medical provider, said, "I don't think she expects to carry the South."

Looks like Lady MacClinton is prepared to have the blood of AIDS patients on her hands if that's what it takes to win the White House.

Posted by: Greg at 10:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 365 words, total size 2 kb.

Just as they acted to limit voter choices here in CD22, now the Democrats are trying to prevent the people of Connecticut from voting for the candidate of their choice.

Critics of Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman's independent run to keep his job attacked on two fronts Monday, with one group asking an elections official to throw him out of the Democratic Party and a former rival calling on state officials to keep his name off the November ballot.

Staffers for the senator from Connecticut, who lost the Aug. 8 Democratic primary to Greenwich businessman Ned Lamont, called both efforts dirty politics. The senator filed as an independent candidate a day after the loss, running under the new Connecticut for Lieberman Party.

A group whose members describe themselves as peace activists asked Sharon Ferrucci, Democratic registrar of voters in New Haven, to remove Lieberman from the party, arguing that he cannot be a Democrat while running under another party's banner.

* * *

John Orman, a Democrat who gave up a challenge to Lieberman last year, argued in complaints filed with the state Monday that the senator should be kept off the Nov. 7 ballot.

Orman, a Fairfield University professor of political science, accused Lieberman of creating "a fake political party" and added: "He's doing anything he can to get his name on the ballot."

In other words, anything to keep the people from having a choice – law or no law to the contrary. I guess voters are only disenfranchised if the result goes against the DNC-favored candidate.

Posted by: Greg at 12:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 274 words, total size 2 kb.

I don't do that very often, but this time I need to. After all, Dionne puts forward a thesis that explains why liberalism became the effete, elite, irrelevancy that it is today.

And it all traces back to an idea propounded by Richard Hofstadter.

But reading Brown is also a reminder of where Hofstadter may have misled the very liberal movement to which he was devoted. There was, first, his emphasis on American populists as embodying a "deeply ingrained provincialism" (Brown's term) whose revolt was as much a reaction to the rise of the cosmopolitan big city as to economic injustices.

Many progressives and reformers, he argued, represented an old Anglo-Saxon middle class who suffered from "status anxiety" in reaction to the rise of a vulgar new business elite. Hofstadter analyzed the right wing of the 1950s and early 1960s in similar terms. Psychological disorientation and social displacement became more important than ideas or interests.

Now, Hofstadter was exciting precisely because he brilliantly revised accepted and sometimes pious views of what the populists and progressives were about. But there was something dismissive about Hofstadter's analysis that blinded liberals to the legitimate grievances of the populists, the progressives and, yes, the right wing.

The late Christopher Lasch, one of Hofstadter's students and an admiring critic, noted that by conducting "political criticism in psychiatric categories," Hofstadter and his intellectual allies excused themselves "from the difficult work of judgment and argumentation."

Lasch added archly: "Instead of arguing with opponents, they simply dismissed them on psychiatric grounds."

But that is still precisely the problem today.

Disagree with a liberal on race? One is a racist, afflicted with a deep psychological disease that renders one's opinions irrelevant. And we won't even get into the Stalinist diagnosis of "homophobia" that gets trotted out when someone dares to question the concept of homosexual marriage or the morality of homosexual activity.And rather than deal with the policies they oppose, liberals went after Reagan and the current President Bush based upon questions of intelligence and supposed psychological defests.

Posted by: Greg at 10:10 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 347 words, total size 2 kb.

Oh happy day! David Wallace is OUT of the CD22 race, leaving the field clear for a single GOP-backed write-in candidate, Dr. Shelley Sekula-Gibbs.

Sugar Land Mayor David Wallace withdrew Monday as a Republican write-in candidate for the seat vacated by the resignation of former House Majority leader Tom DeLay.

His action left the Texas GOP united behind one write-in candidate, Houston City Councilwoman Shelley Sekula-Gibbs, who had won the party's endorsement last week.

Wallace had previously indicated he would stay in the race despite the party's snub.

"What I am choosing to do at this time is unite with the Republican Party behind one candidate," Wallace said at a news conference. "There is no way that two write-in candidates could win. It would be very difficult and divisive to the Republican Party."

Wallace said the party did not pressure him to withdraw.

I don't know about that last statement -- a lot of the grasroots activists (including me) have been putting pressure on him to get out of the race. I don't doubt that Wallace heard from some elected officials telling him to get out of the race if he wants to have any sort of future in the GOP.

And it does come down to a question of campaign finance.

The national GOP says it's willing to commit $3 million for the race, but only if there was one Republican write-in candidate.

Actually, I've heard a figure of $4 million -- but only in the event there was a single viable GOP with the backing of the party. Continuing to stay in the race would have resulted in the national party writing off CD22 -- and left David Wallace holding the bag for the loss of the seat. The other GOP write-in, Don Richardson, is a non-entity who promised to drop out last week. I can only presume that he is a man of his word.

That is not to say that Wallace exited the race with either class or grace -- that is not in his nature.

Wallace took a swipe at that process Monday. “In a session closed to the public, an alternative candidate received the endorsement of the Texas Republican Party by winning a straw poll of 83 precinct chairs that were allowed to vote for what was labeled ‘the Republican choice’ for the write-in candidate to replace Tom DeLay,” he said.

Since that night, “I have received hundreds and hundreds of emails and phone calls” by “people who were not allowed to vote” at the Thursday meeting, and who “strongly encouraged me to continue to run,” Wallace said.

“Without exception, these callers and supporters questioned this made-up process and asked why 83 individuals could determine the ‘Republican choice’ candidate for over 33,000 Republican primary voters across the district,” he said. “Rather than unifying our party, it has only caused further fragmentation.”

In other words, Wallace claims that any process that involved the selection of a candidate by the elected grass-roots leaders of the GOP in CD22 is illegitimate unless it were to result in his selection as the candidate. Too the very last, he is seeking to sow division.

Democrats, of course, are now trying to create a scandal since they have a strong conservative woman from CD22 running against their liberal carpetbagger candidate. Seems obvious that there is a reason that Democrat and Desperation both start with a D!

Posted by: Greg at 12:03 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 584 words, total size 4 kb.

Word is that she will be picking up the endorsement of Tim Turner, former SREC member and former opponent for the CD22 nomination, sometime tomorrow. I'll post more when I know more.

UPDATE: As usual, the Ron Burgundy of Fort Bend County, Chris Elam, gets the story first and posts the press release.

Tim Turner, Republican activist and finalist among the candidates seeking to represent the Republican Party in the Congressional District 22 position, today announced that he is supporting Shelley Sekula-Gibbs as the Republican candidate in an effort to encourage unity from all Republicans and to preserve the district as a Republican stronghold.

Turner, who finished second to Sekula-Gibbs in the final selection by party leadership in a district wide meeting of precinct chairs last week, said he was honored to have received a significant number of votes in that proceeding but, once the party choice had been made, especially under the unique circumstances surrounding this election, all differences and personal agendas need to be set aside in the interest of unifying Republican efforts.

Turner says, “As someone who has been a Republican activist and a team player for over 26 years, I have supported many solid conservatives and have no problem in supporting the candidate chosen by the Republican leadership in District 22. I would enjoy the opportunity to serve the voters in the future if the opportunity to run presents itself, but the race for CD 22 is a race we must work together to win. I would hope that all Republicans will realize how important it is to put differences and agendas aside for a common good in this situation.”

We are now waiting on Mayor Dave's Big Announcement.

Posted by: Greg at 02:27 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 293 words, total size 2 kb.

The ever-alert Chris Elam of Texas Safety Forum has two items up that show why he's the man among local political bloggers.

First, Tom DeLay's main primary challenger, Tom Campbell, has issued a statement supporting Shelley Sekula-Gibbs in November.

Tom Campbell, who finished second in the Republican Congressional Primary in March, announced his endorsement today of Dr. Shelley Sekula-Gibbs as the Republican write-in candidate for the November general election. Campbell also called upon all other past and present District 22 candidates to join him in endorsing Dr. Sekula-Gibbs.

“This is no longer about personal goals. It is about principle,” Campbell said.

Speaking about Dr. Sekula-Gibbs’ selection, Campbell said, “Supporting Shelley is the right thing. Uniting behind a single candidate grounded in Republican values and principles will result in victory. She is worthy of our support and worthy to carry our Republican standard into this election. Even as a write-in, a conservative Sekula-Gibbs can beat liberal Nick Lampson in District 22.”

Campbell attended the meeting of Republican precinct leaders from Harris, Fort Bend, Brazoria and Galveston Counties on Thursday and observed the process. “These are the people that Republicans across the district elected to represent our party,” Campbell said. “These are good men and women working to find a way to unite the Republican Party at a time when unity is essential. They decided to select one candidate that would carry our party’s banner in the November election. Dr. Sekula-Gibbs emerged as the clear winner. The process was fair – everyone had an opportunity to speak.”

About Tom DeLay's role in the meeting, Campbell added, "The Tom DeLay era is over. Dr. Sekula-Gibbs was not hand picked by our former congressman. She was the clear choice of representatives from all four counties in District 22. The cloud of scandal no longer hangs over this race. Now the election can be about the important issues facing our country. I challenge Nick Lampson to stop the muckraking - stop the litigation and let the people decide.”

Tom Campbell made an attempt to get the nomination before the Democrats stopped the process, but got very little traction among the GOP precinct chairs. He is prohibitted by law from running as a write-in candidate. He did, however, get an invite to attend our meeting last week as an observer, and so his statement in the final paragraph that Shelley Sekula-Gibbs is not Tom Delay's Hand-picked successor ought to carry weight with anyone who cares about the truth.

And to add one observation, Campbell's statement proves what i have always believed about him -- he is a good and decent man whose actions wee based upon what he believed was best for CD22. He was simply over his head in a race that no opponent of the incumbent could have won.

And it appears that David Wallace may be making a move of some significance on Monday.

Sugar Land Mayor David Wallace is speaking for the first time since finding out his party won't support him. Wallace wants to be a write-in candidate to replace Republican Tom DeLay in Congress.

The first person to file as a Republican write-in candidate, Mayor Wallace had not commented publicly ever since Republican precinct chairs chose someone else to throw their support behind. But now, he's opening up to Eyewitness News about the unusual selection process and his future plans.

While it's no secret that Wallace wants the job DeLay left behind, it's also quite obvious that on Thursday, Republican precinct chairs picked someone else -- Houston Councilmember Shelly Sekula-Gibbs to support. And Wallace admits he's not a fan of the closed door selection process.

"We've got a large voter base in Congressional District 22 and having the voice of 83 individuals coming together, is that representative of the entire district?" he asked.

* * *

Mayor Wallace says he'll be announcing his decision on whether to stay in the race on Monday. And a lot of people will be waiting for an answer.

"With all of the different changes that took place this week, obviously I am doing a lot of soul searching, meeting with a number of representatives to talk about the next step and that'll be announced on Monday," he said.

My guess is that he is OUT -- and if he isn't, I point back to my earlier comment on his candidacy.

Posted by: Greg at 06:05 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 730 words, total size 5 kb.

When you can't break the 10% level in polling data, and then sink below 5%, why shouldn't the party look elsewhere?

While some Republicans are quietly rooting for his Democratic opponent, Ned Lamont, because they feel he would be such a polarizing liberal target, many leading Republicans say it would serve the party better to have a centrist like Mr. Lieberman remain in office, particularly after being spurned by his own party.

But one thing is clear: there is little to no talk of bolstering Mr. Schlesinger, 48, the Republican nominee, a little-known former mayor of Derby who has registered polling numbers so low they are breaking records. Little known throughout the state, Mr. Schlesinger received attention this summer following reports in The Hartford Courant that he had gambled under a fake name and once had gambling debts. He has dismissed the accounts as irrelevant.

Mr. Schlesinger has reacted bitterly to the rejection by his own party, dismissing calls for him to leave the race. He maintains he can win by conveying his conservative platform to voters.

* * *

As Mr. SchlesingerÂ’s popularity has waned from a minuscule 9 percent in July to an almost invisible 4 percent in a Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday, the question for Republicans has shifted to whether to embrace Mr. Lieberman.

GOP leaders have had to decide -- remain loyal to the party and hope for a win by the extreme liberal lamont, or act to support what is best for America by supporting Lieberman. I'm pleased that so many have put America first.

Posted by: Greg at 10:30 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 271 words, total size 2 kb.

Still feeling sort of cruddy, but thought I'd check my email.

Someone sent me a link to a post on another blog attacking me for things I've written regarding CD22 over the last week or so. Since the poster is offended, I figure I owe him some apologies.

Here is what I left him in his comment section.

1) If stating matters that are on the public record constitutes "trashing" someone, then I gladly plead guilty. On the other hand, if being a loyal member of the party means hiding corruption and dishonesty on the part of elected officials, I want nothing of it. I continue to find it interesting that you criticize me for "trashing" David Wallace but fail to point to a single spot where my posts have been inaccurate -- much less flse. But if you think I need to apologize for what I posted, I will "I'm sorry I have spoken the truth about David Wallace."

2) I think Smither is a good man, and I believe that it would have been a legitimate course of action for the GOP to support him. I struggled, -- publicly, as you note -- with the question of whether the best course of ction might be to put the support of the GOP behind him as a way of keeping CD22 out of the hands of a liberal like Nick Lampson. As I said in a number of places "Maybe we should make Bob Smither the first Libertarian party congressman in 2006 -- and the first Libertarian party ex-Congressman in 2008." But since you seem to feel I was wrong to think and say what I did, let me offer this apology -- I am sorry that I had the audacity to think unauthorized thoughts, and to think outside the box (or think at all) with regard to the best course of action to prevent the seat from falling into Democrat hands."

3) Of the entire lot of GOP candidates who emerged after The Virginian decided to "screw, blue and tattoo" CD22 this spring, I believe Shelley was and is the best of the bunch. I worked long and hard this spring and summer to persuade my fellow chairs of that. I am not, however, a member of her campaign staff and hold no official position with her organization -- and my words represent me and my opinions only. I was even prepared to give Wallace a chance -- but he has displayed a sense of arrogance and entitlement from the very moment The Virginian announced his resignation. He has refused to meet wtih any group which is not dominated by his supporters or at any forum not organized by them. Whether it is the Harris COunty GOP candidate forum in May or the CD22 Executive Committee meeting on Thursday, David Wallace has shown he is unable to face the unconverted and is only willing to preach to the choir -- not a good trait in a candidate for such a highly contested seat. But since you are offended, I'll offer another apology -- "I'm sorry that I have come to expect better of Republican candidates over the course of my quarter century of political activism within the GOP."

As I remind my students when I teach American Government, politics is the art and science of trying to ensure the election of candidates who will do the most to implement policies which most closely put conform with one's beliefs and desires -- and I have openly discussed how to do that in the current situation. Any other course of action would have been counter-productive.

Posted by: Greg at 08:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 615 words, total size 3 kb.

Well, they finally found a judge to do what no other judge in the country has been willing to do -- rule that the NSA program to make connections between terrorists at home and abroad is unconstitutional.

A federal judge in Detroit ruled yesterday that the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance program is unconstitutional, delivering the first decision that the Bush administration's effort to monitor communications without court oversight runs afoul of the Bill of Rights and federal law.

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ordered a halt to the wiretap program, secretly authorized by President Bush in 2001, but both sides in the lawsuit agreed to delay that action until a Sept. 7 hearing. Legal scholars said Taylor's decision is likely to receive heavy scrutiny from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit when the Justice Department appeals, and some criticized her ruling as poorly reasoned.

This puts her at odds with every other judge who has ruled on the matter -- so much for res judicata.

Not that this decision is ikely to stand.

Several dozen lawsuits have been filed around the country challenging the program's legality, but yesterday's ruling marked the first time that a judge had declared it unconstitutional. Experts in national security law argued, however, that Taylor offered meager support for her findings on separation of powers and other key issues.

"Regardless of what your position is on the merits of the issue, there's no question that it's a poorly reasoned decision," said Bobby Chesney, a national security law specialist at Wake Forest University who takes a moderate stance on the legal debate over the NSA program. "The opinion kind of reads like an outline of possible grounds to strike down the program, without analysis to fill it in."

And all she had to do to get it was ignore or dismiss as irrelevant every single case that has dealt with national security surveilance -- including those of the FISA court that provide precedent for sustaining the NSA program.

The NY Times, of course, is ecstatic that the safety of the United States has been given the backseat to the privacy rights of those who would kill America and eliminate all rights. And while legal scholars are pointing to the flaws of the case, the NY Times sees the matter differently.

But for now, with a careful, thoroughly grounded opinion, one judge in Michigan has done what 535 members of Congress have so abysmally failed to do. She has reasserted the rule of law over a lawless administration and shown why issues of this kind belong within the constitutional process created more than two centuries ago to handle them.

More proof that the editorial staff of this once-proud institution of our nation's most significant city has relocated to Fantasy Island.

UPDATE: As noted in the comments below, I didn't get the chance to read or comment upon the editorial of that other traditional bastion of Democrat Party liberalism -- the Washington Post. Interestingly enough, their editorial sees matters a bit different, and more in line with the legal experts -- Taylor blew it. While not at all conceding the legality of the NSA program, the editorialist makes it very clear that Taylor failed in her task of impartially and fairly assessing the evidence and rendering a decision based upon the law and the merits of the case.

THE NATION would benefit from a serious, scholarly and hard-hitting judicial examination of the National Security Agency's program of warrantless surveillance. The program exists on ever-more uncertain legal ground; it is at least in considerable tension with federal law and the Bill of Rights. Careful judicial scrutiny could serve both to hold the administration accountable and to provide firmer legal footing for such surveillance as may be necessary for national security.

Unfortunately, the decision yesterday by a federal district court in Detroit, striking down the NSA's program, is neither careful nor scholarly, and it is hard-hitting only in the sense that a bludgeon is hard-hitting. The angry rhetoric of U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor will no doubt grab headlines. But as a piece of judicial work -- that is, as a guide to what the law requires and how it either restrains or permits the NSA's program -- her opinion will not be helpful.

Judge Taylor's opinion is certainly long on throat-clearing sound bites. "There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution," she thunders. She declares that "the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution." And she insists that Mr. Bush has "undisputedly" violated the First and Fourth Amendments, the constitutional separation of powers, and federal surveillance law.

But the administration does, in fact, vigorously dispute these conclusions. Nor is its dispute frivolous. The NSA's program, about which many facts are still undisclosed, exists at the nexus of inherent presidential powers, laws purporting to constrict those powers, the constitutional right of the people to be free from unreasonable surveillance, and a broad congressional authorization to use force against al-Qaeda. That authorization, the administration argues, permits the wiretapping notwithstanding existing federal surveillance law; inherent presidential powers, it suggests, allow it to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance on its own authority. You don't have to accept either contention to acknowledge that these are complicated, difficult issues. Judge Taylor devotes a scant few pages to dismissing them, without even discussing key precedents.

The judge may well be correct in her bottom line that the program exceeds presidential authority, even during wartime. We harbor grave doubt both that Congress authorized warrantless surveillance as part of the war and that Mr. Bush has the constitutional power to act outside of normal surveillance statutes that purport to be the exclusive legal authorities for domestic spying. But her opinion, which as the first court venture into this territory will garner much attention, is unhelpful either in evaluating or in ensuring the program's legality. Fortunately, as this case moves forward on appeal and as other cases progress in other courts, it won't be the last word.

Ultimately, the conclusion here is correct -- this is not the last word on the NSA program, and we as a nation are fortunate this is true. And if I come down upon the side of recognizing this program is acceptable under the law, the COnstitution, and the historical practices of previous United States presidents during time of war, I accept that there can be good-faith disagreement on this matter.

Posted by: Greg at 10:32 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 1098 words, total size 7 kb.

In this evenings meeting of GOP precinct chairs from CD22, the decision was made to endorse Houston City Councilwoman Dr. Shelley Sekula-Gibbs to replace Tom Delay in Congress.

I have been working with the Sekula-Gibbs campaign since spring, as I believe her to be the best of the candidates who stepped forward following The Virginian's resignation. A solid pragmatic conservaitive, I believe she matches up well with this district.

I'll write more tomorrow.

Posted by: Greg at 03:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 87 words, total size 1 kb.

Frankly, I'm getting really tired of the games played by members of the GOP leadership. Or state party leaders have handled the entire Delay situation incorrectly, and now you have this idiot seeking to undermine the process -- because his candidate cannot win.

The chairman of the Fort Bend County Republican Party is calling for a boycott of a state party meeting about Tom DeLayÂ’s former district scheduled for tonight.

“Holding a closed meeting with very few participants, ostensibly to determine what we as Republicans should do, makes a mockery of our party, the democratic process and should be avoided at all cost,” Gary Gillen, chairman of the Fort Bend County GOP, wrote.

At the request of state party Chairwoman Tina Benkiser, the Republican Party chairmen in Galveston, Harris, Fort Bend and Brazoria counties were to call for a meeting of precinct chairs in Congressional District 22.

The text of Gillen's letter is found here. Chris Elam analyzes it here.

I have to agree with Chris on this point.

It is difficult to rectify Gary's tone in his letter, with regards to the small number of participants in the write-in selection process, against his tone in the comments he made to Bob Dunn of Fort Bend Now, on the night of the precinct chair straw poll at the Fort Bend CD 22 meeting.

At the time, Gary was ostensibly pleased with the idea of letting the precinct chairs voices known, when he publicly announced the results of that straw poll. He went a step further in expressing his pleasure with their discernment and unique position of authority in selecting a replacement, when he issued this statement.

No GOP donors, nor Pachyderm Club members, nor Republican Women's club members, nor Young Republicans, or even headquarter volunteers - had a voice in Mr. Gillen's straw poll. Yet at the time, he announced that he was struck how “these informal polls continue to show strong support for David Wallace.”

Of course, this poll was fresh off the heels of another poll that Mr. Gillen was responsible for, where only 1100 replies were received, and where multiple candidates names were left off of the reply form. Even though the return rate on this poll was a mere 6.38% on the number originally mailed out... the party chairman felt as though the results were important enough to issue a press release with the results. This mail-in survey had been derided for its inaccuracy, its potential for fraud, and many people, including yours truly, pointed out that “while this sounds like a noble idea, in reality it is a terrible one.”

Gillen wants David Wallace -- warts, corruption and all -- and will do whatever he can to facilitate that end.

Posted by: Greg at 10:21 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 467 words, total size 3 kb.

I guess they prefer promoting the dirty Republican over the clean ones.

With dwindling hopes of keeping Tom DeLayÂ’s longtime House seat from falling to a Democrat in November, Texas Republicans on Tuesday called an urgent meeting for Thursday to exercise their only option: agreeing on a write-in candidate.

But that slender prospect — no such write-in campaign has succeeded in the state — seemed to suffer a blow when a leading candidate facing party opposition disparaged the meeting, saying “that may have worked in Moscow,” and vowed to keep running even if it meant two Republican write-in candidates.

“I’m in the race and I’m in it to win,” said the candidate, David G. Wallace, the part-time mayor of this booming Houston suburb named for its onetime Imperial sugar factory. He said he might be too busy campaigning to attend the meeting.

Yeah, Dave has a history of skiping any meeting where he cannot be assured of a ready-made majority in his favor. That is why he couldn't be bothered to meet with Harris County GOP precinct chairs back in May.

I'm particularly disturbed the paper could not be troubled to include a single quote from the other major candidate in the race, Shelley Sekula-Gibbs. She was interviewed at length for this article on Monday morning, but you wouldn't know that from reading this article. I wonder what they have against clean, competent, qualifed conservative women who don't leave a trail of slime behind them?

Posted by: Greg at 10:21 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 259 words, total size 2 kb.

Some folks have asked why I believe David Wallace to be unethical, corrupt, and unfit to represent the GOP in the CD22 Congressional race, even as a write-in with no significant chance of winning. Well, I received the following item tonight that supplies a neat summary of the problems with David Wallace. I also have all or almost all of the documents and articles in question, though I was having difficulty uploading them for my site

Public information on David Wallace, Mayor of Sugar Land and an announced Republican Candidate for Texas Congressional District 22, from earliest to current.
A. David G. Wallace on April 28, 1988 filed a voluntary petition of personal Chapter 7 Bankruptcy in Collin County Texas. Chapter 7 means that Wallace paid his creditors nothing.
B. A November 23, 1991 article in The Guardian (London) identifies Wallace as a business partner of Mark Thatcher, son of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. The article reports that Wallace and Thatcher were business partners in a firm identified as Emergency Networks, Inc.
C. An April 2, 1995 article in The Sunday Times reports that the IRS accused Emergency Networks, Inc. of not paying the taxes withheld from employees’ pay to the IRS. The article reports that a memo shows that Wallace, a director of the firm was “fully aware of the unpaid taxes.”
D. The 4/2/95 Times article also reports that employees (Liquori and Hughes families) of Emergency Networks complained that health insurance premiums were withheld from their pay but that the firm did not pay the premiums to the insurance company leaving the employees without health care for which they paid. The Liquories had to file personal bankruptcy when they were unable to pay their medical bills for lack of health insurance they had paid for.
E. An October 17, 1994 article in The Independent -- London Emergency Networks,Inc. was placed in Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 1994.
F. A November 25, 1992 article in The Guardian (London) states that a secret United States government communications identified Mark Thatcher as being involved in a Saudi Arabia arms deal. The same article reported that Howard Teicher, who was monitoring military build-up in the Middle East indicated that Mark ThatcherÂ’s name turned up in diplomatic dispatches from US Embassies in Europe and Saudi Arabia regarding Middle East arms deals in the 1980s.
G. An October 10, 1994 article in The Guardian (London) reported that David Wallace and Mark Thatcher were partners in Grantham Company, an investment company that would “look for companies on hard times and put up the money with some hands-on management” said one associate. The article also reported that Thatcher in 1992 was named in a US court in connection with a $4 billion payment to a Saudi national by Rolls-Royce and British Aerospace to help them with a defense contract with Saudi Arabia. An October 10, 1994 article in the Los Angeles Times reported that both the Sunday Times and Independent said that Mark Thatcher earned a $19 million commission for helping secure the Saudi Arabia arms deal. The LA Times claimed that the Sunday Times said the allegations that Thatcher profited from the arms deal came from transcripts of telephone calls tapped by Saudi intelligence between members of the Saudi Royal Family and its agents.
H. Thatcher for many years maintained that he was not involved in any arms sales, but an April 5, 2005 Dallas Morning News article reported that Mark Thatcher in a plea bargain agreement pleaded guilty in South Africa to helping finance a coup attempt in Equatorial Guinea.
I. An October 2, 1994 article in The Observer Newspaper reported a Houston attorney, William King (now Managing Partner of Linebarger, Heard law firm’s Houston office), revealed that Mark Thatcher and his business partner David Wallace were being sued by John “Jay” Laughlin under anti-racketeering, or RICO, legislation. Laughlin claimed that he was duped after David Wallace took over his firm, Ameristar Fuels, and he was squeezed out of management. Laughlin claimed that Ameristar was worth at least $2 million when Wallace took over in 1993 and that by September, 1994 when Wallace placed Ameristar in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy that the firm had a negative $6 million worth. Thatcher and Wallace maintained that they did nothing wrong, but in an August 1, 1995 article The Guardian (London) reported that Thatcher paid approximately $500,000 to settle the case.
J. The 4/2/95 article in The Sunday Times reported that Grechen Hyland, financial controller of Ameristar claimed that “Wallace wired large sums of money to Indonesia without supporting documents. I lost count of how many times I requested documents of these outgoing wire transfers.”
K. A January 22, 1995 article in the Mail on Sunday (London) reported that Barnet Skelton, Jr. an attorney investigating Ameristar stated that Wallace was simply a pawn of Mark Thatcher. The article reported that Jay Laughlin, who had filed a RICO suit against Wallace and Thatcher, claimed that the money Wallace used to take over Ameristar came from Thatcher. Skelton claimed that Thatcher wanted to conceal his involvement in Ameristar to evade US tax law. Ameristar enjoys several US tax privileges on condition that all of its shareholders are US Citizens or residents for tax purposes and Thather was a resident of Switzerland. Laughlin stated that Margaret Thatcher was encouraging her son Mark to “distance himself from Wallace” and that Wallace was asked by Ms. Thatcher to resign as Treasurer of her foundation.
L. It appears that David Wallace and Mark Thatcher were business partners in at least two failed businesses from about 1990, shortly after Wallace filed personal bankruptcy until 1995 when the suit by Laughlin was settled, during the time that Thatcher was identified as profiting from arms deals involving Saudi Arabia and Iraq.
M. An August 3, 1998 Dallas Business Journal article reported that WallaceÂ’s investment firm The Markpoint Co. had acquired Power Battery Inc. WallaceÂ’s firm supposedly pumped $1 million into Power Battery and exchanged about $14 million in private stock from LSM International, Inc. a south Texas battery manufacturer that Markpoint purchased in 1997. The new company was named Consolidated Power Battery Corp. Wallace was paid to manage the business but on August 22, 2000 Wallace placed the company in bankruptcy (Case No. 00-37735-H4-7 (Chapter 7).
N. On October 20, 2000 the Bankruptcy Trustee for Consolidated Power Battery Company (CPBC), Robbye R. Waldron, sued Wallace and other Directors of CPBC for mismanagement. Wallace and the other Directors settled the lawsuit for a $300,000 payment.
O. On January 8, 2001 Wallace filed a Proof of Claim against the bankrupt CPBC on behalf of Wallace & Associates Investments, Inc. (f.k.a. The Markpoint Company) for $107,643.78. The bankruptcy trustee filed an objection to the claim pointing out that Wallace was an insider and a director of the bankrupt CPBC. The claim was denied.
P. On January 8, 2001 Wallace as Manager of SVP Management LLC, the General Partner of Sundance Venture Partners L.P. filed a Claim against the bankrupt CPBC for $820,974.84. The Bankruptcy Trustee of CPBC, Robbye Waldron, filed an Objection To Claim pointing out that Wallace was an insider and director of the bankrupt CPBC. The claim was denied.
Q. On December 21, 2001 WallaceÂ’s firm, Wallace & Associates Investments, Inc. borrowed $76,794.04 from SouthTrust Bank, Houston, Texas for 6 months. David Wallace personally guaranteed the loan.
R. Wallace failed to pay the note according to its terms and on June 12, 2002, after Wallace had been elected Mayor of Sugar Land, SouthTrust filed suit, Cause No 773900 in County Court at Law # 1 Harris County Texas to collect from Wallace.
S. On December 2, 2002, while Wallace served as Mayor of Sugar Land, Wallace entered into an Agreed Final Judgment whereby the court ordered David Wallace, individually, and Wallace & Associates Investments, Inc. to pay SouthTrust an amount totaling $82,870.42 plus post judgment interest of 10% per annum. Wallace agreed to pay SouthTrust $1,000.00 per month, with all sums to be paid by December 31, 2003.
T. Wallace failed to pay according to the terms of the Agreed Final Judgment.
U. SouthTrust abstracted the judgment by filing it of record with the County Clerk of Harris County on February 2, 2004.
V. On February 27, 2004 attorneys for SouthTrust filed a writ of discovery on David Wallace. As of January 1, 2006 the amount Wallace owed totaled about $100,000.00 including accrued post judgment interest.
W. A March 1, 2005 article in the Fort Bend Sun Newspaper reports that Wallace had received a one-third equity interest in a real estate investment trust from Will Perry and then placed that equity interest in his childrenÂ’s trust which places the equity interest beyond the reach of WallaceÂ’s lenders and creditors.
X. The 3/1/05 article also revealed that Wallace had moved his office into W. C. PerryÂ’s office in early January 2005 and had taken a position as Chairman investment Committee W. C. Perry Realty Investment Fund & W. C. Perrry Properties, L.P. WallaceÂ’s announcement that he had taken a position with W.C. Perry as an executive created a concern about conflict of interest on a proposed land development project involving the City of Sugar Land, Imperial Sugar, Cherokee Investment Partners of Raleigh North Carolina (developer of the project), W. C. Perry Properties and the State of Texas for the acquisition and development of the Imperial Sugar Mill property and adjacent state of Texas land in Sugar Land. The project involved the potential of favorable financial benefits being granted to the developer and one of its partners, Perry Properties, to develop the project. There was the potential for abatements or other financial benefits being granted from the city, county, or state to the developers. The city had been in discussion for several years on what should happen with the property following Imperial SugarÂ’s bankruptcy and Wallace had privileged information on the project.
Y. A March 8, 2005 article in the Fort Bend Sun revealed that the City Council of Sugar Land had created a “firewall” around Wallace following his announced involvement with Perry and would exclude him from any further discussions on the Imperial Sugar/Cherokee Investment Partners project.
Z. Harris County public documents shows that on February 6, 2006 a Limited Partnership, NC Two LP of Raleigh, North Carolina, created and controlled by NC Ventures, Inc. a Stafford, Texas firm owned by Wallace’s former neighbor and campaign contributor Michael Hrebenar provided Wallace a Satisfaction of Agreed Final Judgment thereby releasing the judgment lien previously filed by SouthTrust Bank against Wallace. According to public information, NC Ventures, Inc.’s business includes acquiring bad debts from financial institutions at a substantial discount from the amount of the debt and collecting the debt. The industry standard for this type of purchase of bad debts is about 10¢ on the dollar. According the Harris County public documents NC Two LP controlled by NC Ventures, Inc. acquired Wallace’s bad debt from Wachovia Bank successor to SouthTrust Bank on September 7, 2005.
AA.On June 30, 2006 Wallace filed a Financial Disclosure Statement relating to his pursuit of US Congressional District 22 seat that showed he earned $85,775 for the six months of 2006 and $160,000 in 2005 the majority coming from (W.C.) Perry Properties Brokerage Services ($60,000 in 2006) ($120,000 in 2005). That report discloses the interest in W. C. Perry Properties, LP (valued between $1 and $5 million) given to Wallace in 2005 and explained above is held by his dependent children. The home Wallace lives in is also owned by his dependent children (valued between $250,000 and $500,000) as is an interest in Sugar Land Entertainment Enterprises, LP (valued between $250,000 and $500,000) and 4660 Sweetwater Professional Centre Partners, LP (valued between $50,000 and $100,000). Such ownership structure effectively renders Wallace judgment-proof should lenders or creditors attempt to collect from Wallace. It is not known if Wachovia Bank knew about WallaceÂ’s earnings in 2005 or about the interest in the real estate investment company that Perry gave Wallace when it sold, at a discount, the SouthTrust loan made to Wallace to NC Two LP.
Wallace’s track record over an 18 year period involves personal bankruptcy, multiple business failures, and accusations of impropriety including RICO violations. Though he has recently stated he “turns businesses around”, he has not publicly presented specific examples of successful turnarounds.

Now let's be real honest here -- there may be perfectly logical and reasonable explanations for some of these items -- but a reasonable person must wonder if such explanations exist for every single one of them, including the legal/business/financial issues that are currently at issue. And more to the point, do we really want to have a candidate with this much baggage following in the footsteps of our former congressman, whose ethical record has been questioned over the years -- and who is currently facing criminal charges?

Whether the CD22 precinct chairs decide to endorse a write-in candidate or someone already on the ballot, we need someone of high integrity with as clean a record as we can find. And i'm sorry, folks, but David Wallace is not it.

Posted by: Greg at 03:35 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 2200 words, total size 14 kb.

See, Jimmy Carter isn't just the worst president of the twentieth century; he can also lay claim to a much higher title.

SPIEGEL: You also mentioned the hatred for the United States throughout the Arab world which has ensued as a result of the invasion of Iraq. Given this circumstance, does it come as any surprise that Washington's call for democracy in the Middle East has been discredited?

Carter: No, as a matter of fact, the concerns I exposed have gotten even worse now with the United States supporting and encouraging Israel in its unjustified attack on Lebanon.

SPIEGEL: But wasn't Israel the first to get attacked?

Carter: I don't think that Israel has any legal or moral justification for their massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon. What happened is that Israel is holding almost 10,000 prisoners, so when the militants in Lebanon or in Gaza take one or two soldiers, Israel looks upon this as a justification for an attack on the civilian population of Lebanon and Gaza. I do not think that's justified, no.

Gee -- this jackass cannot differentiate between kidnapped soldiers and captured terrorists who have been tried before in court and sentenced for their crimes. Under the principles here, the taking of hostages by Iran during his administration was legitimate and the rescue mission he launched was not.

But he does say one thing I agree with.

As you possibly know, historically, our country has had the capability of self-correcting our own mistakes.

He is correct -- our nation made a grave mistake in electing Jimmy Carter as president in 1976, and self-corrected by electing and re-electing Ronald Reagan as his successor.

H/T -- RCP Blog, Truthdig, Hot Air

Posted by: Greg at 12:00 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 292 words, total size 2 kb.

The CD22 situation has been a mess for some time. We had a congressman who decided to walk away from the nomination after the priimary. We had a state party that handled the situation poorly. We had local party leaders who tried to control the situation for the benefit of friends and cronies.

And then you had the little people -- the precinct chairs who represent the grassroots of the party. We tried to conform to all the various problems that arose along the way, doing what we heard from the people of our precincts and operating in the dark too many times.

Finally, it seems that we might have a say in this process, and that we might really have some element of control over what happens next.

Or at least we will if one local politician listens to what we have to say, and if one member of congress stops trying to direct what is happening.

Now it appears that we might be permitted to have our say -- and one candidate is saying he does not care. David Wallace has already filed his write-in candidacy documents. He has not waited for the grassroots to speak. He has not indicated that he will defer to us and withdraw in the event we reject his candidacy. Indeed, Wallace has been actively courting the NRCC, seeking the endorsement of that organization despite the fact that almost every GOP congressman has signed on to the idea of listening to the grassroots.

David Wallace -- hear me clearly. If you make this run over the objections of the precinct chairs of CD22, we will come after you. We will fund your opponents in your mayoral reelection bid, we will walk the city of Sugar Land to campaign against you, and we will oppose you in any other political race you seek to compete in. Do not place yourself above the people or the party.

And to those on the national level who want to support Wallace regardless of what we say -- rest assured, we will be coming for you as well. Back our candidate, or back none at all -- or face our wrath.

Posted by: Greg at 11:42 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 375 words, total size 2 kb.

I don't particularly find this activity to be useful, but the response to this protest is instructive.

A protester staked out the home of a Muslim candidate for the Maryland House of Delegates, holding a sign and wearing a T-shirt that mocked Islam.

Timothy Truett sat in a folding chair Saturday on the cul-de-sac outside Saqib Ali's home in Gaithersburg with a sign reading "Islam sucks," and a shirt with the slogan, "This mind is an Allah-free zone."

Curiously, though, Ali did not seek to dialog with Truett.

Ali took several photographs of Truett but refused to speak to him, saying he did not get the impression that Truett wanted to start a constructive dialogue.

"We don't waste our time talking to people who hate us," Ali said Sunday.

Interestingly enough, that is precisely what we are told the US needs to do -- we need to talk to those who hate us in order to understand them and seek to change our ways so that they no longer feel alienated from us. Similarly, Israel is expected to engage in peaceful negotiations with those who launch rockets and send suicide bombers to kill her citizens. But Saqib Ali doesn't feel he (or the Muslim community) needs to reciprocate.

But then again, what do you expect? Those who speak loudest for Islam today -- al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, etc -- would rather fight, maim, and kill those who refuse to submit to Islam than take a single step towards accommodation and coexistance. Perhaps Mr. Ali and Mr. Truett are not that far apart in how they view the world.

Posted by: Greg at 03:56 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 276 words, total size 2 kb.

From the Boston Herald.

Kennedy calls Cheney’s attack on Lamont “ugly and frightening”

Well, Teddy would know ugly and frightening.

Besides -- more people have been killed by Ted Kennedy's driving than by Dick Cheney's comments about Ned Lamont. I'll be concerned about the issue when the numbers change.

By the way, was Kennedy sober when he blamed America for the plot to blow up airliners with liquid bombs?

“Five years after 9-11, it is clear that our misguided policies are making America more hated in the world and making the war on terrorism harder to win.”

Who is making ugly and frightening comments, Senator? Whose words went too far?

Posted by: Greg at 10:59 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 130 words, total size 1 kb.

I got several interesting phone calls today.

One came from a GOP leader from the area . Another came from an elected official who is not seeking the CD22 nomination. The third was a return of my call to an old friend from years gone by who now works in Washington. All were "off the record" calls, so I cannot tell you who they are. However, I can tell you that the content of those conversations filled me with a bit of hope, and lead me to moderate my opposition to plans to run a write-in for the CD22 seat.

Suffice it to say that I now know that there will be a meeting of CD22 precinct chairs at a central location sometme soon. We will have the opportunity to freely weigh-in on the course taken by the Party, including whether or not we should support any write-in candidate, as well as who we should support if we do. I was told that while my initial suspicions of a plan to bring us a candidate to affirm was more or less correct, a number of individuals (some who were a part of the meeting and some who were not) raised serious objections to that plan and pushed for this more open, grassroots-oriented plan.

This means that I did one of my commenters a grave disservice below because I was operating on obsolete/incomplete/inaccurate information. I'd like to publicly offer my apologies to Kathy for questioning her veracity on this matter.

I'd also like to add that, while I still have reservations about the possibility of any write-in candidate succeeding, I would be more than willing to support any decision that is not a mere rubber-stamping of The Virginian's hand-picking of a successor -- with the exception of a particular elected official from Fort Bend County whose personal, business, and political history contains too many skeletons for me to stomach.

Posted by: Greg at 02:16 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 326 words, total size 2 kb.

Kinky thinks so.

Independent gubernatorial candidate Kinky Friedman on Thursday asked Travis County prosecutors to investigate Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn, accusing her of possibly misusing state employees to help her campaign.

Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle responded by distributing to reporters his office's policy manual, which states that criminal complaints filed by one candidate against another will not be investigated until after the election.

"It's typical mudslinging politics. So much for Kinky not being a typical mudslinging politician," Strayhorn spokesman Mark Sanders said, referring to the complaint.

Friedman filed his complaint based on reports in the Houston Chronicle and the San Antonio Express-News that Strayhorn's state staff was preparing briefing papers for her to use even when she was making political appearances.

Strayhorn's campaign has defended the use of state employees, saying she is frequently engaged to discuss state business no matter where she is.

So Strayhorn is using state employees for campaign purposes, but Ronnie Earle is not willing to investigate it now. I suppose if she had the GOP nomination it would be different.

Maybe a few of us "just plain folks" should get a copy of Kinky's complaint and file it ourselves, just to ensure that the ciminal activities of "One Tough Grandma" get investigated and prosecuted in a timely fashion by the partisan hack prosecutor in Austin.

Posted by: Greg at 11:22 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 228 words, total size 2 kb.

We just need The Virginian to go away -- and stay out of the process of cleaning up the mess he has left in his wake. But the Chronicle doesn't see it that way.

The former congressman, who engineered a Republican majority in the Texas House, probably has reduced the number of U.S. House seats Democrats need to regain a majority. He owes residents of District 22 a fuller explanation of his behavior.

Whatever his reasons for cutting and running, Tom DeLay will never again be seen in the same light by either friends or foes. As a constituent labeled DeLay in a letter to the Chronicle, it seems "The Hammer" has become "The Quitter."

Really, it does not matter. We have been screwed, blued and tattooed by Tom Delay over the last several months Any explanation is irrelevant and unproductive -- and no more welcome than his involvement is selecting his successor.

Posted by: Greg at 11:18 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 167 words, total size 1 kb.

We voted for a constitutional amendment on spending and passed it, seeking to control government spending. But the only folks with the standing to enforce it are the folks only folks who can break it -- meaning that the amendment is null-and-void as far as the courts in Texas are concerned, because the people have no remedy for its violation.

A judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by a Houston taxpayer group against legislative leaders over the level of state spending.

Visiting state District Judge Bill Bender of Seguin ruled Monday that Citizens Lowering Our Unfair Taxes didn't have standing to sue the Legislative Budget Board over the state's constitutional spending cap, which limits the state budget from growing more than the Texas economy.

* * *

Tom Kelley, a spokesman for Attorney General Greg Abbott, who defended the legislative leaders, said the judge "properly ruled that these issues fall strictly within the province of the Texas Legislature and the Legislative Budget Board."

Now the problem is that the Legislative budget Board has allowed for growth beyond what the amendment permits -- and the legislature has gone along iwth it, rahter than making the tough decisons to rein -in spending.

Clout's Edd Hendee, who also hosts the morning show on KSWV radio, notes the outrageous nature of this decision.

Edd Hendee, CLOUT's executive director, said the group will file an appeal with the Third Court of Appeals in Austin.

"If a taxpayer doesn't have standing in a courthouse, I question who does," he said.

After all, those violating the Constitution are unlikely to take legal action to force their complaince with the mandate -- but they have been held to be the only folks with standing to do so.

If you want to read more, Lone Star Times has coverage of the "hearing" -- at which the judge heard no evidence.

Posted by: Greg at 11:05 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 319 words, total size 2 kb.

Now such a statement could have been made at any time during the DeLay saga -- after all, we chairs were told it was our process to direct, right up until the point that the state GOP leadership and the local county chairs realized that there was a substantial bloc that actually wanted to go a direction other than the hierarchy wanted. Now it appears that the plan is to select a write-in candidate without the involvement of the real grass-roots of the party, and then tell us that we must support the candidate or face the wrath of that leadership for our disloyalty.

State and local Republican Party officials were scheduled to meet at 11 a.m. today in an attempt to find a write-in candidate to serve as the partyÂ’s last-ditch hope to hang on to Congressional District 22.

Party insiders named Houston City Councilwoman Shelley Sekula-Gibbs and Sugar Land Mayor David Wallace as the two candidates whose names most likely will be discussed at todayÂ’s meeting.

* * *

Local party officials said Texas GOP Chairman Tina Benkiser has called a meeting of local party leaders – presumably State Republican Executive Committee members – at an undisclosed area location at 11 a.m.

Late Tuesday afternoon Benkiser issued a statement saying “Republicans are working together with grassroots leadership in the district to get behind and vigorously support one candidate, whether he or she is on the ballot or not.”

“We need to have a meeting of the leadership and get people together and come out with who we’re willing to support,” Kathy Haigler, a Harris County GOP precinct chair and SREC member. “You keep the door locked until you come out with one name.”

* * *

Haigler said party leaders may discuss potential write-in candidates this morning, then quickly call a meeting of precinct chairs within CD-22 – which encompasses portions of Fort Bend, Harris, Galveston and Brazoria counties.

It’s possible the precinct chairs would be asked to vote for one candidate, “and you tell anyone else if they run” as a write-in, “they’ll be blackballed forever” in future races by the Republican Party, Haigler said. “They’re only going to hurt the party by spitting in the wind.”

I'll say it right now -- any individual involved in making such a selection or offering such an ultimatum had better be prepared to be blackballed forever by the grass-roots. I've spoken to a number of folks this evening who are deeply offended at being cut out of the process by the leadership while being expected to act as a rubber-stamp for their selection.

And I say this especially because of the very wise observation of Sheryl Berg.

Sheryl Berg, Harris County GOP Senate District 11 chair, said she believes the choice for a potential write-in candidate is between Wallace and Sekula-Gibbs.

However, she added, GOP Chairman Benkiser may not “advocate for either one of them” because neither was likely to have been chosen by the four-person District Executive Committee that would have selected DeLay’s replacement had the courts allowed it. That committee’s members were to have been chosen by CD-22 precinct chairs in each of the four counties.

“At the end of the day,” Berg said of the Republican leadership, “I think they’re going to choose not to come up with one person.”

Let me make it clear -- it is not Tina Benkiser's place to advocate for anyone in this process. And as for the fact that neither Wallace nor Sekula-Gibbs (or Tim Turner, who has also indicated he would consider a write-in bid) were unlikely to be selected by the CD22 District Executive Committee, let me point out that the leading candidate has indicated his disinterest in giving up his seat in the legislature to make this long-shot bid, as have several other individuals. Only two have been willing to stand up and offer themselves as sacrificial lambs -- and it seems that the same folks who will not consider candidates who actually stepped-up to the plate earlier in the process appear to be out recruiting others to run, despite the fact they also would not have been selected by the DEC.

I'll state my position again for those who have not heard my words before -- absent the sudden emergence of a candidate who would overwhelm Lampson as a write-in -- which I believe would require selecting someone of the stature of former president George H. W. Bush, given the obstacles to winning such a race -- I believe the only reasonable choice is to discourage write-in candidates and throw our support behind Libertarian Bob Smither, whose name will at least appear on the ballot.

UPDATE -- Bob Dunn offers an additional revelation on today's meeting.

Texas Republican Party Chairman Tina Benkiser, resigned congressman Tom DeLay and local members of the state GOP executive committee met Wednesday to lay plans for bringing the party behind a single write-in candidate to run for the congressional seat DeLay just vacated.

What the hell is the supposedly-a-Virginian former congressman doing in the meeting to select my party's candidate here in Texas after he abandoned the job? I'm sorry -- any involvement by Tom DeLay inescapably corrupts the process and the resulting candidate. Anyone who stayed in that room once DeLay arrived is so tainted by his presence that they need to resign whatever position they currently hold and retire from politics due to a profound lack of judgement. And as for DeLay himself, he just needs to take his happy ass back to Virginia and stay there. We've seen what his help has done for us.

Then there is this little gem from Tina Benkiser.

Attendees at the Wednesday meeting with DeLay, Benkiser and members of the SREC said DeLay did not mention any specific candidate for his former seat in Congress.

“He’s expecting there to be a write-in candidate, but he wants the party to make that decision,” one attendee said. “He’s going to stand behind the party.”

* * *

“Obviously, I have talked with Congressman DeLay,” Benkiser said. “This race is not about him. This race is about giving voters a choice.”

She was not specific about how a single candidate will gain the party’s favor in serving as the write-in challenger to Lampson and Smither. She said holding a meeting with the precinct chairs from within CD-22 “is certainly an option.”

Listen, bitch you arrogant fool, you have just shown how far you will go to corrupt the process in order to get the candidate of your choice. That meeting with the elected representatives of the grass-roots is merely "an option" is a sign that you lack the integrity to hold your office. I regret having ever supported you for your position. Resign. Now.

And let me also say that I have difficulty imagining any situation which would allow me to support the candidate produced by this process.

Posted by: Greg at 12:47 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 1171 words, total size 8 kb.