“I’ve always said that I would serve no more than two full terms. This may be my last term or I could run for one more. But no more after that. I firmly believe in term limitations and I plan to adhere to that.”

–1994, Austin American Statesman

Now she is running for a third term, this election.

Unfortunately, Senator Hutchison was not the only elected official to break a major promise from the 104th congress and beyond.  The Republican party has also broken a major promise.  A contract.  The Contract With America.

The Contract With America was written largely by Rep. Dick Armey, and in part from former President Reagan’s 1985 State of the Union address.  The contract details actions that the Republicans promised to take upon become the majority party in the House of Representative.  The Contract was signed by all but two of the Republican members of the House, and all of the Party’s non-incumbent Republican Congressional candidates. (paraphrased from Wikipedia)

The text of the Contract remains, today, on the U.S. House of Representatives’ website.  You can read the full text of the Contract, here.

To this day, Republicans are claiming the contract was a success.  To a very minor extend, it was.  No promises were made that any proposed legislation would become law… The legislation only needed to be introduced to fulfill the Contract.

Unfortunately, as Vince at Capitol Annex points out:

[T]he fact remains that the “contract” was really a deceptive document. The GOP made promises. Some of those promises were delivered on but the “reforms” of the Contract With America necessary for the GOP to deliver on its promises have been either devastating to America or have had little or no impact on the areas of law and public policy they were designed to revolutionize.

I’m going to give you a run-down of some of the contract’s provisions, and explanations on how the Contract has been broken – sometimes time and time again.  This isn’t short, but it is informative.

The items blockquoted in italics, below, are quoted directly from the contract…

On the first day of the 104th Congress, the new Republican majority will immediately pass the following major reforms, aimed at restoring the faith and trust of the American people in their government:

FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress;

Vince states that it appears that the Republicans have not done well with this.  Although I am waiting on the final verdict, I’ll use Tom DeLay as an example.  DeLay and his supporters in the House continue to act (and speak) as if DeLay has done nothing wrong, despite the indictment in Travis county, and the fact that he may be a target of the Abramoff investigation.  It’s not even the fact that they act as if DeLay has done nothing wrong, they are defending his actions.  The prudent
course would be to neither voice approval, or disapproval, and wait for the verdict.

Although using DeLay as an example is swinging on a vine, one still does not need to sniff out too many squirrels to get the understanding that the Republicans in Congress are stalling on the ethics issue.  Whether this is because they don’t believe they need it (as is my opinion), or not, doesn’t matter.  The fact that they are not seeing through something that would go a long way to fulfilling a portion of the contract is enough.

SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;

and…

THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT: A balanced budget/tax limitation amendment and a legislative line-item veto to restore fiscal responsibility to an out- of-control Congress, requiring them to live under the same budget constraints as families and businesses.

Fiscal Responsibility.  In 1994, I was still in high school, and taking little interest in politics; thus, I knew little about the contract until I read it.  When I read the above, I nearly choked on my diet pepsi.

Waste… Fraud… Abuse…

What about last-minute riders to bills that would fund their pet (“pork”) projects, or make special changes in laws.  OFTEN, the things tacked onto a bill have NOTHING to do with the original purpose of the bill.  A perfect example?  Nine months after the Contract, a budget bill failed to pass congress because the Republicans loaded it with abortion-related amendments.

What in the hell happened to fiscal responsibility?  The Republicans have eaten away at the surplus built during the Clinton administration, and are currently forcing on the nation the largest federal budgets, and the largest deficits the nation has EVER seen.  The debt has been allowed to bloom to 9 TRILLION DOLLARS (that’s $9,000,000,000,000).  First Congress
set a new debt limit of that amount, then the President (Bush) signed the stupid bill.

What happened to fiscal responsibility?

THE TAKING BACK OUR STREETS ACT: An anti-crime package including stronger truth-in- sentencing, “good faith” exclusionary rule exemptions, effective death penalty provisions, and cuts in social spending from this summer’s “crime” bill to fund prison construction and additional law enforcement to keep people secure in their neighborhoods and kids safe in their schools.

$10.5 billion for state prison construction grants was awarded by Congress.  In Texas, our prisons are already bursting at the seams.  After Congress “reformed” (and I use that term very loosely) the habeas corpus appeals process – effectively shutting the courthouse doors to many wrongfully convicted persons – the non-violent offender population in the prisons sky-rocketed.  Oh, the reform was only the start.  The Contract’s mandatory minimum sentence legislation was the straw, the cymbal,
the icing.  With that, the prisons built by that $10.5 billion have already become overly full.

Furthermore, what about the Bush and Republican budget proposals that affect our police, firefighters, port and border security, and aviation security!  In one cast, the House – the people who CREATED the Contract – wanted to cut even more from those programs than the President did.  Examples?

One Bush budget cut first-responder funds within the Department of Homeland Security by over half a BILLION dollars ($648 million).

Nearly ONE BILLION DOLLARS was cut from state and local law enforcement programs. ($959 million – this included the gutting of Clinton’s successful COPS program that put 100,000 additional officers on the streets.)

THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT: Discourage illegitimacy and teen pregnancy by prohibiting welfare to minor mothers and denying increased AFDC for additional children while on welfare, cut spending for welfare programs, and enact a tough two-years-and-out provision with work requirements to promote individual responsibility.

Congress transferred “welfare” to a block grant system.  In this system, the federal government gives states blocks of money.  The states then distribute it under their own legislation and criteria.  Sounds good, right?  Well… perhaps not…  Let’s use Texas as an example…

The Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) is an excellent way to show the breach of the Contract, and how block grants can go horribly wrong.  From a website on the University of Texas System:

The initial CHIP program offered to pay for health insurance for children of families earning up to 200 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL), but states could choose any level of family income up to the limit. They also have wide latitude in how the funds are distributed, including funding local health clinics.

When – in 1999 – then Texas Governor, George W. Bush and the Texas Legislature considered the CHIP program, Texas agreed to fund the program for households up to only 150% of the FPL.  About half a million Texas children (then).

Unfortunately, Republicans, and Bush – who was looking towards the White House, and didn’t want to be saddled with signing a massive “welfare” program into law – wanted to shut the door on the program to even more Texans by lowering the percentage of the FPL even more.

Because of problems with in the Republican-led administration, Texas was one of at least 40 states who had to give back a large portion of its CHIP dollars.

In 2003, the Texas Legislature cut CHIP funding by $200 million, causing over 150,000 Texas kids to lose coverage.  At the same time, the state added $295 million to a business growth slush fund, to create a larger corporate welfare program in Texas.

…If taking money from children and giving it to multi-billion dollar corporations (many on the Fortune 100 list) isn’t a good example of breaking the Contract, I don’t know what is.

THE FAMILY REINFORCEMENT ACT: Child support enforcement, tax incentives for adoption, strengthening rights of parents in their children’s education, stronger child pornography laws, and an elderly dependent care tax credit to reinforce the central role of families in American society.

…Well blow me down… one of the biggest blunders in the Contract – which I didn’t realize until I was informed – was the addition of MILLIONS of dollars to the federal budget to fund block grants for abstinence education.  As you may remember, I did an article on the massive funding for abstinence education, and how it simply does. not. work.  Want even more proof?  Take
a look at MSNBC’s commentary on the subject:

Despite taking courses emphasizing abstinence-only themes, teenagers in 29 high schools became increasingly sexually active, mirroring the overall state trends, according to the study conducted by researchers at Texas A&M University.

From a related story:

The study showed about 23 percent of ninth-grade girls, typically 13 to 14 years old, had sex before receiving abstinence education. After taking the course, 29 percent of the girls in the same group said they had had sex.

Boys in the tenth grade, about 14 to 15 years old, showed a more marked increase, from 24 percent to 39 percent, after receiving abstinence education.

Failed. Failed. Failed.  Why not try some REAL sex education?  I understand that Republicans claim to hold family values at the fore-front; however, almost every family I speak with, today, agrees that abstinence-only sex education is insane.  Certainly, they believe abstinence should be taught; but, they all agree that safe sex, birth control, and disease prevention should be taught as well, as a back-up for when the kids and teens don’t listen to the abstinence portion.  While I haven’t
done a formal study on this, I can tell you that over the course of the past year, I’ve spoken with members of over fifty families on the subject…  All agree that some sort of safe-sex education is paramount, today.  How is it family values by ignoring the safety of your children?

I won’t get into detail about the Republican’s continued attack on gay/lesbian lifestyles – despite  the fact that many gays and lesbians have very strong and loving family units.

THE AMERICAN DREAM RESTORATION ACT: A S500 per child tax credit, begin repeal of the marriage tax penalty, and creation of American Dream Savings Accounts to provide middle class tax relief.

If you’re single and think you pay too much in taxes, thank the American Dream Restoration Act.  In order to cut the marriage penalty, the Republican’s required single adults to pay more in taxes than married couples.

THE JOB CREATION AND WAGE ENHANCEMENT ACT: Small business incentives, capital gains cut and indexation, neutral cost recovery, risk assessment/cost-benefit analysis, strengthening the Regulatory Flexibility Act and unfunded mandate reform to create jobs and raise worker wages.

We’ve gone more than a decade since an increase in the federal minimum wage… During that decade the cost of living has gone up, time and time again.

Add to that that since the last minimum wage increase for Americans, Congress has received several pay increases.

Now I’m not going to bother posting a further summary… I’ve gone on too long.  Yes, I’ve left out a LOT of portions of the contract.  Why?  Because I’ve paraphrased much of what Vince Leibowitz has said in his post on the subject.  If you want further takes on this, and many many more examples (including on the portions I didn’t touch), please go read his
well-researched post.

Technorati Tags: Contract With America, George Bush, Republicans, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican Party, GOP

KBH was twice elected to the Texas House of Representatives.  In 1994, Hutchison won her first six-year term to the United States Senate, against Richard Fisher.  During that campaign, Hutchison vowed she would only serve two terms (reference).

Her bid for Senate in 2006 marks her third campaign.  If KBH wins this campaign, she will enter into her third term in the Senate.  This in direct violation of that campaign promise she made, so many years ago.  Hutchison has been under fire for things outside of breaking promises, before.

In 1993, Hutchison was fighting charges that she had abused her office as a state treasurer. She is quite well known for the following quote:

Would these documents reside anywhere else on any kind of backup? Well, I never authorized the personal or political work to be out there, and I don’t want to be criticized for it being out there. And so I want you to go to those backup tapes and remove it all from the backup tapes.

Despite that quote, and other evidence, Hutchison was acquitted in February of 1994 when the chief prosecutor, Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle, attempted to drop the charges and  starting over later.  He was outwitted by presiding judge John Onion who swore in a jury on the case and immediately ordered them to acquit Hutchison.  Hutchison, along with her press secretary Dave Beckwith (former Dan Quayle spokesperson), and Republican Consultant Karl Rove (her former campaign manager,
and – later/now – top handler to George W. Bush), proclaimed the forced verdict as undeniable proof of Hutchison’s innocence.

Throughout her campaigns, Hutchison has received around $1.2 million in political contributions from the oil industry (since becoming a senator).  During a Congressional debate about oil royalties, an attempt to enter that fact into the Congressional Record was ruled out of order by the Chair (a Republican), who claimed campaign finance was “not germane” in the debate.

As can be plainly seen, Kay Bailey Hutchison has been at the thick of a lot of things in her political career.  It is not really surprising that she is breaking a former campaign promise… Not because she has led a tumultuous career, but because that simply seems to be what is done, these days.  Thus proving the sad state of American politics.

Technorati Tags: Kay Bailey Hutchison, Texas, Senate

Kuffner has solicited many of the candidates in this month’s run off election.  …I suppose I should qualify that, so it doesn’t sound as it he is prostituting himself, shouldn’t I?  What I mean is that he has sent a request to the candidates, asking them to reply with a 500 word, five paragraph themed essay explaining why we should vote for them… and yes, spelling counts.

In reality, Kuffner simply asked for a write-up of their choice.  He received responses from four of the candidates: Radnofsky (US Senate), Alvarado (Lt. Governor), Grant (Lt. Governor), and Ankrum (10th Congressional District).  All candidates are in the Democratic party primaries.

After reading the spiel, I was rather impressed.  It appears that the majority of candidates stayed well away from the “traditional” “you should hire me because my opponent sucks Chef’s chocolate, salty balls” type of campaign.  Just for kicks – and because no one is immune from the snark – let’s take a good look at each candidate’s commentary.

Barbara Radnofsky

Radnofsky kept it simple with a nine point list.  I won’t list every point here, but I will list points number four and nine. Why those points?  Because those are the only points where Radnofsky took a specific slam at her opponent.

4. Eugene Kelly is a spoiler, a ticket-splitter, and Karl Rove’s dream nominee: he is a non-campaigning recluse, a proven loser against Hutchison, and an enemy of the Democratic Party in Texas. He runs on the strength of his name’s similarity with Gene Kelly and can’t even dance, much less run an efficient statewide campaign. He has beaten good Democrats in statewide races before by considerable margins, and represents a significant threat.

Heaven forbid a man that can’t dance, EVER getting into the Senate!  He just wouldn’t be able to keep up with those nightly black-tie balls.  After all (and all together, gang), THEY’VE GOT THE BIGGEST BALLS OF THEM ALL!

9. As a first-time candidate with a unique last name and no prior political experience, I beat my two challengers by a comfortable margin, though the name Gene Kelly pulls up 19 million hits on Google.

19 million hits?!  He must be a shoe-in.  Oh.. wait…  There’s only one problem.  The first upteen million hits are all for the original Gene Kelly.  Perhaps he should run, and see what happens.  …he’s dead, though, yes?  Well, then again, it may not make that much of a difference whether he’s dead, or not!

MARIA ALVARADO

Alvarado is running for Lt. Governor, her runoff oponent is the illustrious Ben Grant (who should change his name to Fred Estair (or at least Fred Mertz) for a better shot).

Alvarado starts off by offering herself to sainthood:

I am glad for this “Off the Kuff” opportunity to offer all Texas voters reasons to vote for me in the run-off election for lieutenant governor. A fundamental reason shared by all is a desire to replace the incumbent with an elected official that is intent on serving all Texans. I believe that, with all due respect and admiration for my opponent, I am the candidate that can fight the incumbent’s war chest with the will of people. I have been to the most humble
of homes to some very affluent homes to talk about my vision of a one Texas for all. I have not tried to convert anyone from his or her political reference group. I have only offered everyone a place at the table if they would set aside politics as usual and instead consider that a candidate without connections and millions of dollars would be accountable only to the people. (Emphasis, mine)

Alvarado then goes on to give us this gem:

A related reason to vote for me in the run-off election is that my pursuit is not just about getting the Democratic nomination.

It appears her pursuit is “…reaching out to registered voters that do not vote,” and “…the task of engaging these voters as a long-term but overdue mandate.”

She then goes on to explain why she – apparently above all others – can access these 10 million voters: “…because I am not afraid to listen. I am not afraid to care. I believe outreach and urging these voters is essential for getting Democrats elected to office.”

Wait a minute, Maria…  Didn’t you just say a few minutes ago that “…my pursuit is not just about getting the Democratic nomination”?  So… a reason to vote for you, is that you’re urging voters to vote Democrat… and yet your pursuit is not just about the nomination?

If you are a Democrat, vote for me in the run-off election and I will exert my work ethic to defend against naysayers that deny the vitality of the Democratic Party. They say it takes 21 days to make or break a habit. Start today a habit to reject the naysayer and instead believe!

…While I’m at it, I’ll give up cigarettes, and my bottle of scotch, as well.  I’m sorry, I just found that whole combination of words, irregular.

As your nominee for lieutenant governor, I will begin demonstrating my work ethic as your next lieutenant governor by being present each day of the next special session. As your nominee, I will encourage all voters that when in doubt vote Democratic up and down the ballot in November. I’ve given you the “how” of my campaign. The “why” of my campaign is to put the people back in control of their government so that priorities are given to public education, healthcare, and a prosperous future for all. Tied to a
prosperous future are all the issues that I have been informed about during my visits across the state. I have listened and I will continue to listen. As your lieutenant governor, no lobbyist will mute your voice.

HEY!  She ends really well! (Well, it’s not the last paragraph, but you don’t want to read that whole spiel, heh.)

BEN GRANT

Grant is Alvarado’s opponent…

Born the son of a country preacher, Grant worked a lot of hardscrabble jobs to get an education…

No, really… I shit you not:

I was born the son of a country preacher. I have worked at a lot of hardscrabble jobs to get an education. I have a law degree from the University of Texas Law School. I have taught in the public schools, served ten years in the Texas Legislation (six years as chairman of the Judiciary Committee). I served four years as District Judge and 17 years as a justice on the 6th Court of Appeals.

You know, I looked long and hard to find something to snark about with Grant… the above was the best I got…  He really got me with this paragraph:

My experience, my willingness to work with people for the common good, and my true concern for our state qualifies me to serve the people of this state. I am running for Lt. Governor, because I believe government should represent all the people, not just a few elite, selfish, special interest groups. I am running because I believe all power is inherent in the people and government should be the servant of the people.

See, I like it when candidates are short, to the point, list their qualifications, and leave it at that.  Grant’s got my vote (well, he had it before, but that’s beside the point, heh).

TED ANKRUM

Ankrum is a candidate for the 10th congressional district.  His opponent is Paul Foreman, who declined to participate in this little event.

Ankrum starts by saying that he spent his time in the primary running against the Republic incumbent… Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot?  Seems he was running the wrong race, there…

He follows this this little bit of self-serve trivia: “Every major newspaper in the District has said that I’m the only Democrat that has a chance of beating [Republican Incumbent Mike] McCaul.”

Ankrum then loses my interest, completely, by drawing in Vietnam.  It’s his second freaking paragraph, and he’s ALREADY using VIET-FSCKING-NAM as a campaign push.  Oy vey.. Read:

When I was serving four tours in Vietnam, I learned that Democracy was not a gift to be bestowed by the American government, and that American troop’s sacrifices would not make any difference in the outcome of another country’s civil war.

Ohhh… I see.  He’s not letting Vietnam die (trust me, folks, it’s been flatlining for years.  If we’d just quit slapping the paddles on it, every so often, we could call the time of death)… not letting it die, to dis the Iraq thing.  Hmm…  Despite my misgivings about Iraq, I have to admit, we made a freaking difference, yes?

Oooo…  Just what I like to see after a war…  A good mud slinging fight:

When I was Chief of Environmental Compliance at NASA, I learned first-hand how corrupt Tom Delay was. He tried to pressure me into allowing a contributor to do a job at Johnson Space Center with equipment that violated the Montreal Treaty to protect the earth’s ozone layer. He didn’t stop until I threatened to go to the Washington Post newspaper.

For a total of seven paragraphs, Ankrum toots his own horn.  He then goes on, in the eighth paragraph, to start the attack on Foreman (his runoff competitor):

What was my runoff competitor, Paul Foreman, doing while I was learning those things and a lot of others? Running a bookstore in Austin and writing poetry.

Well, I’m sorry.  He uses two sentences.  Then he goes right back to:

Evidently others agree, since I received the endorsement of every newspaper Editorial Board and Democratic club, after head to head debate. Austin-American Statesman: “One of the four Democrats, Ted Ankrum, is clearly the best Choice.” Houston Chronicle: “The Chronicle urges voters to support Ted Ankrum.” Austin Chronicle: ” It is Ted Ankrum who offers the best chance.”

Ted finally finishes up his letter with a single line:

 I ask Democrats to vote for me, because it is so important that a Democrat be elected in November.

…But Ted… Foreman’s a democrat, too…

(SOURCES: Ankrum, Grant, Alvarado, Radnofsky (All from Off the Kuff dot com))

I went to my local precinct to see if there were any non-primary issues up for vote (in my locality, we often vote on random things on weird days).  There were none, but the precinct workers did not want to let me go without checking to see if I could vote in a primary.  It turns out that I am a registered Democrat.  Normally, when filling out my voter registration card,  I do not select any party.  The last time I filled out a voter reg. card, I was half asleep.  Evidentially, I selected Democrat.  For today, that suited me, fine.

For the important races, I’ll tell you my selections.  For the gubernatorial candidate, as promised, I voted for Rashad Jafer.  For Lieutenant Governor, I did not cast a vote.  I have not followed the Democratic LG candidates, and in all honesty, I would like to see a party split in office, when it comes to those two positions.

In all other races, I either did not vote (as I have not followed the local races well enough, in my area (hey, I only opened the poliblog in February… Give me time to catch up)), or voted for those running unopposed (may as well).  For the Democratic referrendums on the ballot, I voted “FOR” in both cases.

After voting, I stepped outside and noticed the sample ballots, listing the issues and races for both parties.  I took a long look at the Republican ticket.  In all honesty, I would not have voted in any of the individual races, but nearly all of the Republican referendums on the ballot would have gotten a “FOR” vote, from me.  If I remember correctly, all but one were economy-related, and as many well know, I am fiscally/economically conservative (for the most part).

Well, that’s it, folks.  Hope you all voted in your respective primaries.  I may drop by my precinct convention (7:15pm at your local polling place), and see if there is anything shaking.  If so, expect an entry.  If not, well…

Technorati Tags: Rashad Jafer, voting, democrat, democratic party, primary election

Powered by Qumana

For more information, please see the following locations:

• Pink Dome: Cowardly Madla Morphing to Criminal Madla?
• Burnt Orange Report: What’s the Problem with Madla?

Technorati Tags: Frank Madla, Carlos Uresti, Pink Dome, Burnt Orange Report, Texas Senate, Ethics Violation

Powered by Qumana

After reading only two sentences in the above-linked story, I was already hearing strains of "Dueling Banjos":

The dueling Republican candidates still shake hands and trade smiles before speeches as they vie for the chance to challenge U.S. Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Waco, but it’s another story in the mailboxes and media.

It appears that recent television commercials, within the district, are the new battlefield. Although the hand shaking and smiling still occurs, the candidates have jumped on the mud-sling bandwagon:

Anderson, who has repeatedly highlighted Taylor’s lack of roots in the district, is now on the receiving end of criticism as Taylor questions Anderson’s residency and campaign style in recent ads.

Ads released Wednesday suggest Anderson is not paying taxes on the Calvert home where he lives about 50 miles southeast of Waco and claim Anderson has used newspaper letters-to-the-editor written by liberals to promote his campaign.

Anderson, who is a former congressional staffer running on his roots in the district, said the Taylor ads make it appear like he is not paying property taxes while he is renting a home owned by his parents.

Anderson showed a tax bill and a deed for a separate Calvert ranch he owns with his brother at a Waco news conference Wednesday and accused Taylor’s campaign of using “falsehoods” to confuse voters.

My personal favorite sentence in the entire article?

Taylor said he was forced to respond when an Anderson campaign mailer compared him to former Democratic presidential candidate and war veteran John Kerry.

Yep, that’s right. the Anderson campaign committed the most grevious campaign sin of all. Comparing a Republican to John Kerry. …If you’re not giggling by now, then take a look at this next statement:

Taylor’s campaign has criticized Anderson’s campaign methods of using two newspaper letters-to-the-editor – in a campaign advertisement and in a posting on his Web site – that he believes were written by people who claim to be liberals on Web sites.

Heaven forbid a liberal endorse anyone outside of his party, particularly a republican. The sky is falling, Auntie Em! The sky is falling!

Of course, Anderson decides to defend himself in a most unique way – by playing stupid:

Anderson he did not know who wrote the letters he used. He said he assumed newspapers vetted letters before printing them.

…Although his assumption hasn’t made one out of me, yet, he certainly made one out of himself. My homie over at Common Sense Blog responded to that little gem, thus:

Vetting letters for political affiliation? What kind of fascist state does he think we live in? Even a Nazi is entitled to writing a letter-the-editor of a newspaper.

It appears that Taylor has asked Anderson to apologize for using the letters. Anderson is refusing. It seems that Taylor is convinced that Anderson planted liberals to write letters to the editor, trashing him (Taylor). Personally, I think they’re both full of it. Anderson for expecting the paper to double-check the letters, and Taylor for assuming that all liberals wear pink ribbons, rainbow buttons, and have a small tattoo of Garfield(tm) on our necks. In other words, how does Taylor know the writers are liberals? Just because they say so, online? Please.

This kind of mud-slinging is something you’d expect between different parties, not within only one. It’s amusing, and amazing, to me how low people will stoop in their campaigns. Heck, this could easily be considered a pre-campaign, as it’s just for the primary. Imagine how these guys will act, if one of them gets to run in a "real" election.

Technorati Tags: TX-17, Tucker Anderson, Van Taylor, Common Sense Blog, Primary

Powered by Qumana

You may remember, earlier last month, that I announced my support for Glen Maxey as State Democratic Chair.  Officially announced, yesterday, Maxey wrote a long letter to his fellow democrats:

Dear Fellow Democrats,

I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about you and about what collectively makes each of us say, “I’m a Democrat.” For my entire life I’ve lived each day “being a Democrat.”

A 20-year-old University of Texas Democrat recently said, “Glen, you’ve done a lot of amazing stuff. How did you do it all?” As I thought about that question, posed mostly as a compliment, I realized that almost everything I’ve ever done that was truly important happened when I stepped beyond my comfort zone. It happened when I took a risk. It occurred when I least could imagine that I would succeed in doing it.

My work has been an amazing journey over these years: teaching migrant workers’ children; founding an AIDS organization before HIV had a name; running for the Legislature when told a person like me couldn’t win (and would never be effective once there); successfully standing up to then-Gov. George W. Bush as a state representative while creating the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP).

I recently celebrated my 54th birthday. It’s a fitting time for me to look back, but instead many of you have urged me to look forward. So, after hearing from hundreds of you, once again I’m stepping beyond my comfort zone. I’m taking another personal risk. And I want you to stand with me in doing so.

Today I am proud to announce that I will be a candidate for Chair of the Texas Democratic Party at the State Convention this June in Fort Worth.

This is most definately a good thing for Texan democrats.  The party has needed a leader like Maxey for quite some time.  Please join me in supporting Glen Maxey for Texas Democratic Chair.

Maxey’s letter went on to give several reasons why he is running, and why he would be the positive choice.  On the permalink page (click, below), you’ll be able to read the remainder of the letter.  Alternatively, you can visit Maxey’s website, www.MaxeyForChair.com, and read it there, along with a English and Spanish versions via podcast.

I wanted to let you know of my decision now for several reasons. Although candidates can throw their hats into the ring as late as when they arrive at the convention in June, the delegates from across Texas have to begin the process NOW to participate in Fort Worth. There will be lots of discussion and rhetoric about “qualifications for State Chair,” “direction of the Party,” and so on over the coming months. I’m hopeful that you will take part in that discussion. To do so, you have to begin the process by attending your precinct convention at 7:15 p.m. Tuesday, March 7, right after the polls close for the Democratic Primary. To learn about this process and how you can be part of it, please go to our online caucus guide.

But what you really want to know is why Glen Maxey would be effective as State Party Chair.

First, I must say that this is not an easy position to take on. The challenges are enormous. The Party today is at a crucial crossroads. The problems of organizing this diverse, gigantic state are daunting.

You might not even think I’m the best person for the job. I know I have limitations and some characteristics that will not please everyone. I’m sure my detractors will add more to this list, but here’s a start: I’m an openly gay man. I’m not rich. I’m not good looking. And I hate cocktail parties. I’m more comfortable organizing behind the scenes than being out front. I’m often unintentionally rude because I’m not especially good at small talk or chit-chat. I’m a workaholic who often says, “I’m going home” when I really mean I’m going to my office.

On the positive side, here are some reasons I want to lead the Texas Democratic Party and why I’m confident I can do it well:

• I know how to organize.
• I know how to organize a coordinated campaign where all our candidates support each other and the Party. I’ve done it.
• I know it is a fact that the State Democratic Party is strong only when county parties are strong. County parties are strong only when precinct-level persons are empowered to do the hard work of organizing Democrats.
• I have a wealth of experience to share. I have a good grasp on both the positive and negative aspects of our Party’s position in Texas today as I’ve participated in and experienced just about all facets of the Party over the last 35 years. (Read more about what I’ve done at the end of this letter.)
• I will use my knowledge and institutional memory about how we got where we are to chart new directions and inspire new people.
• I will empower our young people to lead this Party. It’s awesome to watch what this energetic generation can do and make happen when you train them, encourage them, and then get out of their damn way.
• I want to create a Party that values everyone’s input, opinions, and ideas regardless of race, ethnicity, creed, color, or sexual orientation in the DECISIONS of the Party. We cannot exclude from the decision-making levels those communities and their leaders who support this Party overwhelmingly with their votes on Election Day.
• I trust the grassroots. I believe deeply in the empowerment of individuals to do amazing things. Give folks hope that they can make a difference, and you won’t be surprised when they do make a difference.
• I know you don’t have to pay thousands of dollars to consultants to do what people will do for free if you ask them to do it, give them the tools to do it, and say “thank you” when they do it.
• We should empower ANY Democrat to do whatever the hell he or she wants to do if it registers voters, educates voters, and turns out voters.
• I will create a State Party operation that has infrastructure that endures. Let’s stop the craziness of re-inventing the wheel every two or four years.
• I believe that technology can revolutionize political activity. I’m not an expert at it, but I can and will get the experts in the room to make it happen. I have already worked with folks who have created new tools and overseen the implementation of those tools that have helped us win unprecedented victories in Travis County.
• I understand the power of data management and voter files. I have more first-hand experience with voter file management than almost anyone in this state.
• I believe we can build a stronger State Democratic Party by creating the tools for good people to run for local offices like Constable, Justice of the Peace, and County Commissioner. We have to focus on winning local races at the county level if we ever want to win races statewide. To do so, these folks need two-way access to good data.
• I know fundraising. I understand the inner workings of what should be our Party’s efforts at raising money for infrastructure, for tools for organizers, and for winning campaigns on the Democratic ticket. We have to do it all: large-dollar fundraising, small-donor programs, and grassroots events. The Party must be proactive in using direct mail and internet fundraising tools.
• I will demand fiscal responsibility. Donors will support a Party that has an effective message, competent candidates, and active and operational electoral programs. We must have a sound fiscal management system with oversight by all Party officers and the SDEC. Donors and supporters must be able to know that the Party is spending their money as efficiently and effectively as they would in their own business or home.
• I will lead the way in reforming the Party’s rules and procedures. We need to bring folks to the table to re-organize our Party processes to reflect how people live, organize, and communicate today. Our current procedures and rules were fine in the 1950s, but they are archaic, non-democratic, and irrelevant to the current times.
• I will support our Democratic elected officials and candidates. Our Party should build grassroots support for our House and Senate Democrats to lead on the issues that matter. We should mentor, teach, encourage, and inspire candidates that look like the diversity of this Party to seek office at all levels.
• I know how to bring new people into the party and to the polls. We can create the most comprehensive voter registration and voter education program in the history of the Party, fueled, funded, and executed by the grassroots Democrats of this state. (We registered 85,000 new voters in Travis County in 7 months and swept the offices countywide in 2004 – and we did it with volunteers.)
• I will help build consensus within the Party on the big issues. We can allow healthy disagreements over strategy and issues to occur in respectful and open discussions. Communicate, communicate, communicate. I don’t like backroom deals. I have a thick skin, and I don’t take much political stuff personally. I’ll strive to listen more than I talk.
• I – and the spokespersons I recruit for our Party – will speak up for Democratic values at every opportunity. We must say who we are and what we believe loudly, clearly, and often. I will never let a news cycle go by without responding to the daily acts of corruption, deceit, and malfeasance of the current Republican leadership in this state. I want people to understand again that the Democratic Party’s ideals matter.

At this point in my announcement, I should be saying, “In conclusion . . . .” But I’d rather say, “It’s just the beginning.” It’s time to begin a revolution in how this Party is run and in what we do, precinct by precinct, county by county, to build the Party we all yearn for. I’m ready. Are you?

Sincerely,
Glen Maxey

P.S. Here are some things I’ve done over the course of my 35 years in Texas Democratic politics:

• Volunteered as a teenager at the right hand of the legendary Billie Carr.
• Served as Precinct Chair in small and mid-sized counties in Texas: Walker County and Brazos County.
• Attended 17 consecutive Precinct, County, and State Democratic Conventions and 8 Democratic National Conventions.
• Personally registered well over 10,000 people to vote.
• Worked in several hundred campaigns: Democratic primary and general elections, school boards, city councils, issues, junior college boards, and more. I have been a leader in my community for the Democratic ticket in every election cycle.
• Ran or worked in more than a hundred statewide, district, and local campaigns.
• Trained and mentored thousands of folks to become involved in the electoral process.
• Served as the lead lobbyist and spokesperson for gay/lesbian issues at the State Capitol at the height of the HIV crisis, helping bring about the first proactive HIV legislation and funding.
• Ran for public office in rural, conservative Bryan/College Station and in liberal, urban Austin. I know first-hand the inherent differences between those kinds of campaigns.
• Served six terms in the Texas House of Representatives, passing hundreds of progressive legislative proposals, including landmark disability rights legislation; was a champion for environmental and civil rights; and led the fight to create CHIP.
• Worked on the first statewide coordinated campaign in 1982, which elected Ann Richards, Garry Mauro, Jim Hightower, and Jim Mattox. I’ve played some role in each coordinated campaign since that time.
• Was involved in most (and co-founded many) of the Party Caucuses: GLBT (now Stonewall), Coalition of Black Democrats, Environmental, Choice, and more.
• Chaired the State Resolutions Committee at the State Democratic Convention on numerous occasions and know the diversity of ideas we hold dear.

Technorati Tags: Glen Maxey, Texas, Texas Democrats, Democratic Chair, Texas Democratic Chair

Powered by Qumana

I’ll give you a moment to wipe the saliva off of your monitor after reading that last sentence…

This nice little complaint is coming on the heels of the revelation that Johnson was the source of the initial request that the IRS investigate Texans for Political Justice. Unfortunately, outside groups cannot file ethics complaints against sitting congressmen (nor can they be sued, or otherwise given the funk. It’s always nice to realize your local congressman may be above the law if the rest of the legislature chooses to overlook something (assuming something exists)).

CREW states that it files its complaint because:

under the long-standing ethics “truce” in the House, Members have been directed by their leaders not to file ethics complaints against other Members.

…Wait a minute, wouldn’t that be a bit of an ethical violation, anyway? Think about it. If you know some it doing something unethical, and you refuse to report it, doesn’t that make you just as unethical as the first? God I love politics and their synapse-misfiring philosphies.

Mi Amigo over at the Capitol Annex goes on to report the facts better (or at least less snarky) than I ever could:

CREW’s complaint alleges that Rep. Johnson’s actions violated 31 U.S.C. Section 1301(a), which provides that official funds are to be used only for purposes for which they are appropriated; the Code of Ethics in Government Service, which requires all government employees to uphold the laws of the United States and which prohibits government employees from providing special favors to anyone; and House Rule 23, which requires Members to conduct themselves in a manner that reflects creditably on the House.

Wait a minute… “…which requires Members to conduct themselves in a manner that reflects creditably on the House.”

Do I really need to voice the joke, or are we all giggling right along?

Melanie Sloan, Executive Director of CREW, states:

Rep. Johnson abused the public trust by using the power of his office to harass an organization which had taken a position with which he disagreed. Such actions are specifically prohibited by federal law and ethics rules and the House ethics committee should immediately commence an investigation into Rep. Johnson’s disgraceful conduct.

…I’ve never been too certain about CREW. I was even less certain after I saw their ethics complaint against Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA). It appears that Senator Santorum got a loan from a bank that states, “banking services are available only to investment advisory clients whose portfolios we manage, oversee or administer.” The problem with this? The Senator was not a client of the bank, at the time of his loan. According to Senate Gift Rule, Loans are Gifts – HOWEVER, Senators can accept loans on “terms availible to the general public.” Since Santorum was not a member of the lending bank, and therefore was technically inelligible for a loan from that bank – by the banks own policies – CREW is alleging that he comitted an ethics violation. Personally, I think they’re reaching, there.

Regardless, it will be interesting to see what comes of this bee in the House’s bonnet.

• This contest is open to any candidate (incumbent, or otherwise) for any office in the State of Texas (including county and city seats).
• Candidates must submit a 100 word (minimum) essay to fyre@fyreplace.com, explaining why they are the best choice for voters in their particular race.
• Essays must be written by the candidates and not by a staffer. The candidate must place the following statement as the last line of the essay: “I am [candidate name], and I wrote the above piece.” Any essay not containing that line will not be published.
• The deadline for essays is March 31st, 2006. This gives a full month.

Here are the benefits for doing this:

• Exposure: Each individual essay will be posted to this blog, unmodified, in a seperate entry.
• Double-Exposure: Due to this blogs affiliation with the Texas Progressive Alliance, said essays may be re-posted to other Texas political blogs.
• Triple-Exposure: All essays will be tagged with technorati tags appropriate to the candidate, race, and topics, thus allowing technorati searchers the opportunity to find said essay.
• You’ll Feel Good About Yourself: You’ll be helping a small, struggling, just-started political blog make a name for itsself in the Texas political spectrum.

There you go, folks. Sure, it’s a fairly shameless attempt to draw more attention and traffic to this blog, but it also gives all candidates a chance to speak out. Additionally, I am not requiring e-mail silence on this one. Feel free to e-mail your favorite candidate and let them know. I do, however, request that if you e-mail one candidate, you also e-mail their opposition – just to keep it fair.

Technorati Tags: essay contest, state of texas, political essay

Powered by Qumana

To all candidates in CD-28 (yes, even you Henry Cuellar), and in the interest of fairness being a nice guy, if you email me a 100-word-or-less snippit about why voters should vote for you, I’ll give all three of ya’ll “airtime” (in different posts) on the Annex.

Of course there’s always a catch to these things:

The catch: the piece cannot be written by a staffer (i.e., I want each candidate to write at the bottom of the email (in these exact words, no less), “Hey, I’m Henry Cuellar/Victor Morales/Ciro Rodriguez, and I actually wrote this.” Otherwise, it’s on the Honor System.)

Oh, and there’s a further catch.  The deadline is this Friday (March 3rd), and we (outside viewers) are prohibited from asked really nicely not to e-mailing the campaigns about said essay request.  It’s a matter of seeing just how many staffers are lurking out there, and reading the blog.

So spread the word in blogland if you wish… Just be silent on the western e-mail front.

Technorati Tags: Capitol Annex, Victor Morales, Henry Cuellar, Crio Rodriguez, Joe Morales, essay contest

Powered by Qumana