battle of the divas: obama vs. giuliani

If you haven't heard of Obama Girl or seen her video for "I Got a Crush on Obama," you've either gone on a hiatus from the online political community or you're living under a rock.

Actress Amber Lee Ettinger lip-synched and acted in a video for a sexy song by Leah Kauffman that details, in a humorous way, one girl's crush on Democratic primary candidate Barack Obama. The video took the internet (and the mainstream media, for that matter) by storm almost overnight. It's this campaign season's JibJab.

Now, they're at it again. This time, it's the Obama girls versus the Giuliani girls.

Emil Reichstadt to Address CGS Democrats

Emil Reichstadt, a 2008 Democratic primary candidate for U.S. Senate from Texas, will be in Tarrant County this week to meet with the CGS (Colleyville, Grapevine, Southlake) Democrats.

From the CGS Democrats website:

Special guest Emil Reichstadt

Three Democrats have announced their candidacy in the U.S. Senate race - Rep. and Lt. Col. Rick Noriega, Emil Reichstadt and Mikal Watts. Emil Reichstadt will attend his Thursday's CGS Democrats meeting. The 58-year-old former JAG Army officer was the first candidate to announce his bid. He currently practices law in Dallas. Please read up on Emil, come with your questions and bring a friend.

Date: Thursday, July 19 - CGS Democrats regular monthly meeting

Place: Grapevine's la Madeleine, 900 Highway 114 (NE corner of Hwy. 114 and William D. Tate Ave.)

Time: 6:30pm to socialize and eat, 7pm to meet

Senator Reid's Jujitsu on Iraq

Senator Harry Reid has finally decided to call out the GOP on Iraq.

Reid is a fair-minded, consensus-building gentleman from the old school, so it took him a while to catch on that simply being reasonable and playing nice with the Republicans wasn't going to work. Now Reid is telling the Grand Obstruction Party if they want to filibuster legislation setting timetables for withdrawal from Iraq, they'll have to stand and deliver.

In their newfound role as minority party, the Republicans have threatened to filibuster over 40 times this legislative session. It takes 60 votes to break a filibuster. In other words, having a simple majority is no longer enough to swing any legislation in the Senate.

The Republicans weren't always so cheery about filibusters. In 2005, when the minority Democrats threatened to filibuster over the confirmation of three appellate court nominees, the GOP talking heads immediately cried foul. Labeling the Democrats as obstructionists, they went public and demanded an up or down vote to confirm. So incensed were the Republicans, they actually considered taking a vote on the "nuclear option," banning the right of the minority to filibuster judicial appointees. The Democrats backed down after the "gang of 14" agreed to compromise, and appointees were confirmed.

Now, as a key U.S. general responsible for the surge suggests it could continue until spring, the Democratic-led House and Senate are renewing calls for a firm timetable for withdrawal. After hours of debate this week, Reid has taken a page out of the Republican play book and is promising to enforce an actual filibuster if the Republicans refuse to allow a vote on the Levin amendment.

From TMP Cafe, here is an excerpt from Reid's speech.

It would be one thing for Republicans to vote against this bill. If they honestly believe that “stay the course” is the right strategy — they have the right to vote “no.”

But now, Republicans are using a filibuster to block us from even voting on an amendment that could bring the war to a responsible end.

They are protecting the President rather than protecting our troops.

They are denying us an up or down — yes or no — vote on the most important issue our country faces.

I would like to inform the Republican leadership and all my colleagues that we have no intention of backing down.

If Republicans do not allow a vote on Levin/Reed today or tomorrow, we will work straight through the night on Tuesday.

The American people deserve an open and honest debate on this war, and they deserve an up or down vote on this amendment to end it.

The Democrats were concerned after the elections that the public not perceive them to be too divisive, and they bent over backwards to show compromise with their peers across the aisle. All they got for their efforts was mud thrown in their face.

Republicans this week were starting to put some distance between themselves and the President on Iraq. Now they'll have to pick a side. If it plays out, it will finally show once and for all who supports the troops. Let's hope Harry means it.

lone republican draws attention at naacp

Photo credit: USA Today

According to the USA Today blog, only one Republican candidate for the presidential nomination showed up to the annual NAACP Convention in Detroit. Ten candidates were invited, but either didn't respond to the invitation or cited scheduling conflicts.

The audience gave Rep. Tom Tancredo a standing ovation as he stood amid nine empty lecterns on stage. "Do you think we should wait a few minutes to see if these other guys show up?" he asked.

Rudy Giuliani was fundraising in Michigan, anyway, but still couldn't be bothered to appear at the convention of more than 8,000 NAACP members.

On the other hand, all eight of the Democratic candidates that were invited showed up to discuss the issues at hand. Sen. Barack Obama reportedly drew the most applause.

All the Democratic candidates were warmly received, but Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, an African-American appearing before an African-American crowd in the nation's most African-American city, drew by far the loudest applause.

Obama said that while government cannot guarantee success, it is "a betrayal of our ideals" for people to be held back from opportunity because of their skin color or their economic class.

"If you're poor in this country, that's hazardous to your health," Obama said. "If you're poor and a minority that's downright lethal."

Cornyn Sees Progress in Iraq

As the President prepares to veto the House bill requiring redeployment of troops from Iraq by April of next year, Senator Cornyn and the Republican rubberstamps in the Senate continue to successfully filibuster meaningful legislation on the war in Iraq.

Earlier this week, Cornyn failed to support our troops by voting against the Webb amendment, which would have provided more rest between deployments for our over-extended military.

Disregarding the latest glum report citing the failure of the Iraqi government to achieve benchmarks established by the administration at the outset of the surge, Bush and Cornyn both agree on one thing - we may not be winning yet, but we're making progress.

"It boils down to how do we win and what constitutes a win," Mr. Cornyn said. "What we hope for and what's important to our national security is that we can stabilize it. ... We don't want to leave any safe havens for groups like al-Qaeda. That ought to be our goal, and I think we're making some progress."

Yeah, it's deja vu all over again. In February of 2006, the Senate armed Services Committee held hearings on the progress in Iraq. From a previous post, here is the exchange between Senator Kennedy and National Intelligence Director John Negroponte.

Kennedy: [Quoting the President] I'm confident of our plan for victory...and we are winning. Those are the words of the President.....Did you tell the President we were winning [the war in Iraq]?....

Negroponte: I personally? Recalling conversations I've had with the President and other members of the administration, my view has always been that we are moving in the right direction, that we're making progress.

I analyze it usually in terms of the political process there, the progress towards achieving their political timetable on the one hand and progress towards developing their army and their police forces, effective military and police forces. And I believe that progress has been made in both those areas. And I believe that yes, things are moving in a positive direction in Iraq - overall.

The year 2007 rang in with the loss of our 3000th solider. Seven months into the surge, that toll stands at over 3600. The April-June period was the deadliest three months for U.S. troops since the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion. Since Negroponte spoke those words a year and a half ago, the toll of Texans on that hallowed list has gone from just over 200 to over 300.

Cornyn has been wrong on the war for five years now. Maybe it's time for Senator Box Turtle to come out of his shell and face facts - Iraq is embroiled in a civil war and the horrifying levels of sectarian violence, the escalating military casualties, the lack of a unity government, our deteriorating military readiness, the daily attacks on the once impenetrable green zone, the lack of essential services, the porous borders, etc., do not constitute progress.

See previous post All's Well That Ends.

remembering lady bird

Whenever you drive on a highway in the state of Texas, you are likely to see blooming bluebonnets clustered on the medians or on the side of the road. There's one person to thank for that breathtaking sight.

Claudia Alta Taylor Johnson, affectionately known by the country as Lady Bird, was the wife of President Lyndon Baines Johnson, and one of the most remembered and adored First Ladies in history. A Texas native, she embarked on beautification programs to make the nation a better-looking place for all of us to live. But planting flowers wasn't her only contribution to eradicating the ugly in life: she was known for condemning hatred and championing civil rights.

Lady Bird died on July 11 due to natural causes, surrounded by her family. She was 94.

Capitol Annex has a moving tribute to Lady Bird Johnson, including choice words from several other Texas bloggers that mourn her loss.

another bill for bush to veto

Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced in an email to supporters that the House of Representatives, under her direction, passed a bill that

requires redeployment of U.S. troops beginning within 120 days of enactment and ending by April 1, 2008. It also requires the President to publicly justify the post-redeployment missions for the U.S. military in Iraq and the number of troops necessary to carry out those missions.

As she notes, this is a responsible way to end the war. Pulling out immediately could prove disastrous, and would be unfair to the Iraqi people. Even though they may prefer an immediate troop withdrawal, it would be extremely irresponsible to begin a full-fledged conflict on their soil and then leave them to pick up the pieces by themselves.

However, the Iraqis are not going to meet any of the set benchmarks. And we can't commit to staying over there forever. So this new resolution gives the best solution: have the troops out by this time next year. Bush has nearly a year to redeploy the troops. But will he do it? Or will he pick up his newly-found veto stamp and reject this responsible legislation should it come to his desk?

Meanwhile, over in the Senate, Republicans are beginning to challenge Bush's Iraq policy.

Two prominent Senate Republicans have drafted legislation that would require President Bush to come up with a plan by mid-October to dramatically narrow the mission of U.S. troops in Iraq.

The legislation, which represents a sharp challenge to Bush, was put forward Friday by Sens. John Warner and Richard Lugar, and it came as the Pentagon acknowledged that a decreasing number of Iraqi army battalions are able to operate independently of U.S. troops.

So with House Democrats ready to end the war as soon as possible, and Senate Republicans beginning to stray from the party line, could we have a responsible end to the war in the near future? Or will Bush obstinately veto, veto, veto, leaving a Democrat to clean up his mess in 2009? Only time will tell.

Texas Blue Interviews Denton Democratic Party Chair

The Texas Blue's Grace Stevens has an interview this week with Denton Democratic Party Chairman Neil Durrance. Mr. Durrance was chosen in a special election in March of this year after the previous chairman, Dr. John Gossett, resigned due to health reasons.

[The Texas Blue]: What would you say are the primary issues concerning Denton County?

[Durrance]: The primary issue for Denton County is having an open and honest government. It has to become open with the people and become responsive to the needs of the community.

Other issues for the area are going to be important for many years, like health care for our citizens. Personal and professional responsibilities of elected officials are also growing issues.

[The Texas Blue]: What are you looking forward to in the coming cycle?

[Durrance]: A Democratic victory on a national level, a Congressional level, and locally. We currently have the best crop of candidates than we have in a long time, from the White House to state House to local seats, and we’re going to continue to have qualified candidates for years to come.

It is important to support good candidates that hold Democratic values like open government and personal integrity. This has been lacking for many years from all levels of government.

The Democratic message is beginning to resonate with voters all across the state. With issues and demographics favoring the Democrats, there are signs that the GOP's hold on Texas may not be as strong as it once was. That's reason enough for optimism, even in an area like Denton County.

3rd International Women's Peace Conference Comes to Dallas

The Third International Women's Peace Conference opens this tomorrow at the Adams Mark Hotel in Dallas.

Meet and strategize with Nobel Peace Laureates, elected officials, and grassroots peacemakers from other countries, faiths and backgrounds. Share peace skills and design an action plan for peace. Join us for the International Women's Peace Conference scheduled on July 10-15, 2007, in Dallas, Texas, USA.

Noriega to Help Burnam Celebrate Birthday

Rick Noriega is coming to Tarrant County.

As part of Rep. Lon Burnam's birthday celebration, the Houston representative whose name is currently being touted as a possible challenger to Senator Cornyn, will be visiting the metroplex.

The fundraiser is Thursday at the Fort Worth Botanic Garden Center. For the record, it's Burnam's fourth 50th birthday party.

UPDATE: Thursday's activities are from 6:00 - 8:00 p.m. Walk-ins are welcome, but if you can, please RSVP to the Burnam campaign office: (817) 924-2008.

Savannah River Ecology Lab Closing Investigated

From Michael's Notes comes another chapter in the now familiar litany of science sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. This one deals with the closing of the Savannah River Ecology Lab (SREL) in Georgia.

For 56 years, the SREL has been documenting the effects of the Savannah River nuclear site on the surrounding environment, including the effects of low level radiation. But last year, the DOE (Department of Energy) decided to drastically reduce funding for the lab, essentially forcing its closure. Despite intensive lobbying, no amount of leverage seemed able to reverse the decision.

Michael speculates on what might be behind the government's insistence on shutting down one of the nation's premier research labs for wetlands ecology.

Why cut off funding for SREL? Did they discover everything that needed to be learned about how nuclear site activities affect wetlands and wildlife? No, but one line of research looked at the environmental effects of coal waste. Although it is a nuclear site, steam generation for the operation is coal-fired. And so, coal fly ash - containing many toxic heavy metals - is released in the area. The research was reportedly showing how these contaminants could have devastating effects on amphibian populations. According to a “Friends of SREL” website, the U.S. produces 126 million tons of coal waste annually, and coal is already under fire as a major source of greenhouse gases. The coal industry cannot welcome more bad press about coal. Reportedly, coal industry lobbyists threatened legal action. So, one presumes that Big Coal got on the phone to Cheney, and next thing you know, no more SREL.

Is it possible that the DOE had ulterior motives in the decision to close the SREL? Congress has launched an investigation, which is currently being undertaken by Rep. Nick Lampson (D-TX 22nd) as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment in conjunction with the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight. A hearing is currently expected sometime in July.

For more about the SREL, visit Save the Savannah Ecology River Laboratory.

"Sicko" Prompts Viewers to Take Action

Josh Tyler reviews movies at a blog called Cinema Blend. According to the Grand Prairie resident, the screening of Michael Moore's movie "Sicko," about the healthcare crisis in America, resulted in an epiphany for an Arlington, Texas audience.

"The entire Sicko audience had somehow formed an impromptu town hall meeting in front of the ladies room. I've never seen anything like it," Tyler wrote on CinemaBlend.com, his Web site devoted to films. "It was as if they simply couldn't go home without doing something drastic about what they'd just seen."

Read the entire post here.

Hat tip Easter Lemming Liberal News.

hillary -- don't write her off yet

Too many people -- including Democrats -- are ready to write off the most serious contender in the 2008 horse race to the presidential primaries.

And no, I'm not talking about Barack Obama.

Though the Illinois Democrat may have raised a staggering $32.5 million during the most recent fundraising period (an astonishing feat, especially given that he refuses donations from corporate interests), Sen. Obama is still slagging in the polls.

The most recent polls of the nation's Democrats show that they intend to vote for Hillary Clinton in the primaries -- and not by a slim margin. Sen. Clinton is sitting pretty at 43%, while Obama is at 25%.

So, assuming that Clinton bests Obama in the primaries next year, can she go on and defeat the as-yet-uncrowned Republican nominee in the general election?

Again, the answer is yes.

The polls are stacked in her favor. 55% of the general public is ready to vote for the Democratic candidate, whoever he or she might be. And when candidates are named, nearly every major poll has her beating out both Republican front-runners in the general: John McCain and Rudy Giuliani.

So what are Democrats afraid of? By no means is Hillary unelectable. The voters are telling the pollsters that every day. Even from the standpoint of the much-maligned electoral college system, Hillary can scoop up a victory. In 2004, John Kerry earned 252 electoral votes from a combination of nineteen states and Washington, D.C. Do you think any of the blue states have changed their mind between now and then? No, they're getting bluer. And so is the rest of the country.

Sure, the Republicans won't like her, but look at what they made us put up with for the past eight years! The population at large is ready for a change. A big one.

Hillary can win, and she's in it to win it. So even if she's your not your favorite candidate in the race, you'll do good not to write her off. Or she may -- like so many women -- just have to prove you wrong.

Cornyn Wants Courts to Decide on Subpoenas

First it was Cheney, and now President Bush, who declares himself emperor of the universe. Using the "because I said so" defense, the President has decided not to honor requests by the congressional oversight committee for documents related to the firing of nine federal prosecutors.

In a letter sent last Friday to Leahy and House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), White House counsel Fred F. Fielding said that the privacy of the documents must be respected to ensure that presidential advisers feel free to provide "candid and unfettered advice."

In other words, what good are political blackmail and dirty tricks if everybody knows about them?

Earlier this year, when sponsoring the Open Government Act of 2007, our learned and erudite constitutional scholar and Senate Judiciary Committee member Senator John Cornyn posted this on his website regarding the need for open government.

Open government is one of the most basic requirements of any healthy democracy. It allows for taxpayers to see where their money is going; it permits the honest exchange of information that ensures government accountability; and it upholds the ideal that government never rules without the consent of the people......

Our government is based not on the need to know, but upon the fundamental right to know.

But now that his pals in the White House are directly defying a subpoena issued by his own committee, the junior senator seems a little more sanguine about the whole thing.

"Let's go ahead and have the courts decide it, and we'll honor whatever they decide," said Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) Thursday afternoon on CNN's Situation Room program.

Oh, yeah, because they've never been wrong.

The Real Reason Bush Wants to Revive the Immigration Bill

After suffering a humbling defeat only a few short weeks ago, the Bush administration is pushing a revised immigration bill like its life depended on it. Current editorials opine about how Bush's experiences growing up with Hispanics in Midland, Texas shaped his compassion for immigrants, and that he's fighting for this legislation as part of his legacy, that it will be the signal piece of legislation for Bush's second term.

Bull.

There are plenty of good reasons to tackle the immigration policy and bring a sensible and humane piece of legislation to the floor. But don't kid yourself. With polls slipping, the Republicans (especially those outside the executive branch who will soon be facing re-election challenges) would like to get this issue behind them. The debate on our borders always had the potential to split the Republican Party like no other issue. You know when you hear stalwart conservatives denounce the zealots on rightwing radio that the Republican Party isn't helped by this debate.

No, the real reason is much more cynical. It's exactly because the issue is red meat to conservatives that it is important to have this debate now. Because no other issue besides abortion can so galvanize the public. And what the Republicans need now is something to grab the headlines, something that will send the Rush Limbaughs and Ann Coulters over the deep end. Because what else could distract the public from Vice President Dick Cheney's absurd assertions that he is no longer subject to oversight or accountability?

Think this is too cynical? That risking the future of conservatives who will soon be defending their records to a disgusted public puts the stakes too high? It's as Rovian a strategy as attacking an opponents strength. Or dumping unfavorable news on the Friday before a holiday weekend.

Remember when just after the elections the Democrats were riding high on their recent election victories, and politicians like Jack Murtha were suddenly talking credibly on withdrawal plans? The administration had gone on record saying a new war plan was in the works.

What happened next? Daddy Bush brought in James Baker to craft the report of the Iraq Study Group. Bush Sr. might have actually thought he was buying his son a way out short of total capitulation, but he underestimated Dubya.

Bush grabbed onto the report and immediately challenged it. So rather than the Iraq Study Group recommendations being the compromise to begin winding down the war, it reset the debate. He also immediately signalled he was delaying the announcement of his new war strategy, which then coincidentally came out at the beginning of the legislative session. Instead of having the spotlight to themselves to highlight their agenda on popular issues such as the minimum wage, Pelosi and Reid and the rest of the Democrats were relegated to the business section while front pages and editorials debated the pros and cons of the President's new strategy.

And what was the President's new plan? A surge. In the light of almost unanimous opposition from his own military advisors, he called not for a withdrawal, but for a plan to increase troop levels. It was the most inflammatory decision he could make. Of course, it wasn't going to work, but again, it reset the debate. When was the last time you heard anyone discuss Murtha's proposals? Or even the Iraq Study Group? Yes, our brave men and women are fighting and dying every day, not for a military strategy, but a political one, not for winning wars, not even for winning elections, but simply to preserve power.

So we will have another bitter debate on immigration, one only slightly more likely to succeed than the last one. But it might still serve its intended purpose - to distract the public from the fact that our second-highest elected official has declared himself above the law.

Rahm Emanuel is introducing legislation to defund Cheney's office.

....if you really believe that you're not part of the executive branch, we should[n't] fund you in the executive branch....."

"It's not like I'm looking for this fight," replied Emanuel. "But if the vice president wants to act like he's unaccountable and above the law ... I'll meet that."

In any other presidency, in any other time, this would be the run-up to a constitutional crisis. In the Bush administration, its a good reason to whip up the immigration debate.

Op-Ed Takes a Flame Thrower to von Spakovsky

Cynthia Tucker has a column in the Baltimore Sun giving her views on the confirmation of Hans von Spakovsky to the Federal Election Committee (FEC). It would take a rather long post just to list the scandals of the Bush administration to date (and those are only the ones we know about), so don't feel badly if you can't place the name Hans von Spakovsky right away. Here's a refresher by The Nation's Katrina Vanden Heuvel to bring you up to speed.

With all the brouhaha about Cheney's co-presidency, you may have missed this Tucker's op-ed, but it's too good to be overlooked.

Hans von Spakovsky is among the GOP hacks who perverted the U.S. Department of Justice - trashing constitutional principles, rewarding partisanship over competence and converting the entire machinery into an arm of the Republican Party. His specialty was suppressing voting by Americans of color, who are more likely to support Democrats; he played a starring role in a nationwide effort to disenfranchise poor blacks, Latinos and Native Americans.

Now, Mr. von Spakovsky is seeking Senate approval for a six-year term on the Federal Election Commission, which enforces federal campaign finance laws. (President Bush gave Mr. von Spakovsky a recess appointment in January 2006, but he must have Senate confirmation for a full term.) The vote ought to be easy: No, no and no way.

A group of former Justice Department professionals - including a former chief of the Civil Rights Division's Voting Section - have stepped forward to oppose his nomination. According to The Washington Post, more than half the career lawyers in the Voting Section left in protest during his tenure.

Mr. von Spakovsky's blatant disregard for the constitutionally guaranteed right to the franchise should disqualify him from even serving as a volunteer poll worker,much less a commissioner on the FEC. He is a leading light among the Republican activists who have whipped up the bogeyman of fraudulent voting, claiming that illegal ballots can only be stopped by stringent requirements, such as state-sponsored photo IDs, at the ballot box.

Actually, illegal voters are about as common as honest Bush appointees in the Justice Department.

Read the rest here. In addition to denouncing von Spakovsky's bitter and partisan role in the Civil Rights Divison, those former career professionals to whom Tucker referred in her column had some very interesting insights on voter ID legislation. Definitely worth a read.

And after all this, should there still be any doubt, read Gerald Herbert's breakdown of von Spakovsky's confirmation hearing testimony.

See previous post Voter Suppression and Politics at the Justice Department.

Flower Mound Peace Activist Dies

Whosplayin mourns the loss of local activist David Honish. Honish was a well-known member of the peace community in Denton County and a member of Peace Action Denton.

David had some advice for those shaking their heads at injustice.

People are alarmed by the massive erosion of our First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment Rights by the patriot act. Felony wiretapping by the NSA being ignored by the Justice Department is a matter of concern. And of course, the oil corporations are the ONLY segment of the economy not being crippled by $3/gallon gasoline prices.

Well don't just talk about it America.

Get off your butts and into the streets to do something about it! Call and write your representatives so often that they know your phone number and address from memory. Write letters to your local papers, so that others in your communities know that they are not alone in their disgust with the current government.

The only way that the government shills for the oil corporations will stop killing our children for their profits, is if we refuse to allow it any longer.

David Honish Chapter 106 North Texas Veterans For Peace

Outrage alone won't end this war or stop the abuses of government power. It takes individuals like Honish with the courage and the commitment to step up and be heard. The progressive community has lost one of its own. The best way to honor his memory is for ten more to take his place. RIP

Mid-Cities Drinking Liberally Chapter Featured

In case you missed it, reporter Shaun Rabb at Fox-4 News profiled the Mid-Cities chapter of Drinking Liberally on its Wednesday night broadcast. And yes, we did see a few familiar faces in the mix.

Todd Hill at Burnt Orange Report has the follow-up. And although it was mentioned briefly, we just want to point out that Addison and Dallas also have chapters.

maya angelou endorses hillary clinton for president

bush's "plan b" on darfur: how you can help

Last month, the White House announced plans that would impose sanctions on the Sudanese government if they failed to allow U.N. peacekeeping forces to be deployed into the genocide-torn Darfur region of that country.

"I made clear that the time for promises is over," President Bush said at a press conference. He later said that the sanctions would cut the Sudanese government off of financial aid from the United States while calling the world's attention to their crimes.

According to Colleen Connors of the Save Darfur Coalition, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will attend "a meeting about Darfur with top officials from the U.S., China, France and other key nations" this coming Monday.

The Bush administration took a desperately-needed first step last month when it announced its "Plan B" sanctions against the Sudanese government. Now Secretary Rice must use this meeting with French, Chinese and other leaders to increase the pressure on Sudanese President Bashir.

This kind of opportunity may only come along once. The United States, China and France must seize this chance to lead.

The people of Darfur have waited more than four years for world leaders to make a concerted effort to end the violence. Secretary Rice must make sure Monday's meeting in Paris marks the beginning of sustained, unified world diplomacy.

You can take action to help this cause by sending a note to Secretary Rice asking her "to use this opportunity to convince China and France to join forces with the U.S. on Darfur."

It's time for the world to wake up and we can help to make it happen. Please act now.

Perry Wants Another Decade to Solve Air Quality Crisis

Lightseeker at Texas Kaos spotlights Houston's failure to come up with a plan to meet federal air quality standards. It seems Governor Perry once again has requested a little more time to meet requirements for ozone emissions. He thinks, oh, another decade might do it.

Texas officially asked the federal government Friday for an extra nine years to meet health standards for ground-level ozone, to comply with the law by 2010, saying that it would be "practicably impossible" for the eight-county Houston-Galveston region to comply with the law by 2010.

The request marks the latest postponement in the decades-long saga to clean up Houston's smog and seeks more time than both the county and city wanted. If granted, the city would be the last place in the state and one of the last areas in the country to meet health guidelines for the lung-irritating pollutant.

Houston's first federal deadline to meet ozone standards was in 1975. The new deadline would be June 2019 [emphasis added.]

That would be the same governor who showed his commitment to air quality standards by trying to fast track eleven coal burning power plants. Like our former governor turned president, Perry believes in kicking our problems further down the road.

And lest we feel too smug about Houston's status, don't forget who's number eight on the list of worst polluted cities. How many more years do you think Perry is gonna suggest to solve our problems?

See also More Debate on TXU Emissions and An Air Quality Primer.

TXU Receives Go Ahead for Lignite Power Plant

From the Burnt Orange Report, we have learned that the TCEQ (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality) has overruled two arbitrators and granted permission for TXU to proceed with the Oak Grove power plant. It is the first plant to receive final approval under Governor Perry's previous "fast track" permitting process.

The Oak Grove plant was green-lighted for construction along with ten other coal-fired facilities, eight of which have now been withdrawn. In originally denying the permit for Oak Grove, the arbitrators had questioned whether TXU could reduce pollution as much as they claimed.

In a statement, TXU praised the decision.

“We welcome today’s TCEQ permit approval. Texas needs new sources of power and, with today’s ruling, the Oak Grove plant could begin providing power by late 2009.

The TCEQ has determined that the Oak Grove air permit will be protective of human health and the environment. This permit contains some of the cleanest emission standards ever set for a lignite power plant, and the plant will help meet Texas’ near-term need for power.”

Notice the "lignite" qualifier in that statement. What they don't tell you is that the Oak Grove facility is still the biggest and diritiest of the eleven originally proposed plants. It's actually two power generation units in one facility. While most of the electricity produced would be used in the DFW area, the city that would most directly feel the effects of its pollution is Austin. Even with all the guarantees from TXU about emissions reductions,

the Oak Grove plant would pollute more than other coal plants proposed for the area, according to the permit application. For example, it would emit 3.5 times the smog-forming nitrogen oxides and nearly 10 times the mercury as the proposed Sandy Creek plant in Riesel.

To put that in perspective, according to the SEED (Sustainable Energy and Economic Development) Coalition

If built, it would be the fourth worst plant in the nation for toxic mercury emissions and would produce the smog equivalent of 350,000 automobiles. TXU's four other lignite-burning plants are responsible for almost one-quarter of the industrial pollution in the state.

And that doesn't even touch on CO2 emissions. Coal-fired plants are among the world's biggest producers of greenhouse gases, and powering plants with lignite produces significantly more emissions than using hard coal, making it the worst of the worst.

At the hearing, several elected officials spoke against permitting. Among those testifying were Dallas Mayor Laura Miller and State Representative Lon Burnam.

Activists vow to continue their fight. They have already asked for a rehearing, a necessary step prior to taking further legal action.

A House Divided

We all breathed a sigh of relief when Democrats took control of both houses of Congress last November. Of course, in the Senate that control is tenuous: 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 2 Independents who caucus with the Democrats. One of those Independents—Bernie Sanders—is reliably liberal. The other one is Joe Lieberman, reliably unreliable. Currently, the Republicans are down to 48 members due to the demise of Senator Craig Thomas of Wyoming, who succumbed to leukemia last week at the age of 74. Wyoming law requires, however, that his replacement come from the same party, so the power dynamics in the Senate will not change.

These facts are worth reviewing in light of the harsh criticism leveled at Senate Democrats lately. Many Americans—not just Democrats—were understandably angry that Congress did not refuse to fund the war without a time-table for withdrawal. Bush vetoed the first such bill and threatened to continue to do so until restrictions on his power were removed. True, the final bill contained “benchmarks” which the Iraqi government must attain to continue to receive reconstruction funding, but a provision allows the President to waive those benchmarks, rendering them meaningless. To all appearances, Congress caved to pressure from the White House.

But without a larger majority in the Senate, there was little Democrats could do. To override a veto requires 67 votes, almost an impossibility in the narrowly divided Senate. President Bush is thus emboldened not only to veto the Iraq spending bill, but also to threaten a veto of legislation criminalizing gasoline price-gouging, as well as a bill requiring the government to negotiate lower Medicare prescription prices.

Even the Democrats’ plan to pass a resolution of no confidence in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales may fail next week unless they are able to garner the 60 votes required by Senate rules to end debate. Without those votes, Republicans can simply filibuster the resolution. Of course, when Republicans held the Senate, they threatened to change the long-standing Senate rules so that Democrats could not filibuster Federal Judge and Supreme Court nominees. Only the “Gang of Fourteen” compromise kept this Senate tradition intact, achieved when the powerless Democrats agreed to employ the filibuster only under extreme circumstances.

Should the Democrats change the rules now? Republicans certainly deserve such a move, but playing tit-for-tat politics is hardly good government. In any case, we are all reminded of the high stakes in the 2008 election: We must win the White House—and we must also improve our margin of power in the Senate. Until then, very little of the Democratic agenda will find success.

Ask Senator Cornyn to Reinstate Habeas Corpus

Thursday marks an important milestone for Senate bill S.185, known as the "Habeas Corpus Restoration Act." The bill, authored by Senators Arlen Specter and Pat Leahy and co-sponsored by 17 senators, would restore the writ of habeas corpus to detainees held under under the Military Commissions Act. Tomorrow's vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee will determine whether the bill moves to the floor for a full debate.

It's vitally important for Texans to make themselves heard on this bill. Sen. John Cornyn serves on the Judiciary Committee. Call his office and ask him to support the bill. Firedoglake has a list of toll-free numbers for the capitol switchboard.

Don't hold your breath that Cornyn will see the light. Last fall, we witnessed what might be the nadir of his short and undistinguished tenure in the Senate, when Cornyn, previously a Texas Attorney General and Texas Supreme Court Justice, argued stridently and ultimately successfully for the suspension of one of our most fundamental rights under the Constitution. The debate on what became known as the "torture bill" drew some of the most impassioned and dramatic testimony of the session.

So make that call. And when you're done, make a donation to the campaign of his future replacement. It isn't every day you can help to right two wrongs.

Hat tip to Texas Moratorium Network .

NASA Chief Regrets Comments on Global Warming

The Administrator for NASA, Michael Griffin, has apologized to his staff over the comments he made regarding global warming. In an interview with NPR, Dr. Griffin indicated he wasn't sure whether global warming was a problem that needed to be solved and implied that warming temperatures might actually result in a more optimum climate than the current one.

His comments provoked a firestorm of dissent, promting a meeting with his staff to clarify his position.

NASA administrator Michael Griffin said in the closed-door meeting Monday at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena that "unfortunately, this is an issue which has become far more political than technical and it would have been well for me to have stayed out of it."

"All I can really do is apologize to all you guys ... I feel badly that I caused this mount of controversy over something like this," he said.

Griffin then reiterated his view that NASA's role was to provide data, not to make policy recommendations.

Of course, it would be fitting if a scientific body charged with monitoring the earth's climate stuck to the facts and simply tried to carry out its mission in an unbiased manner. Unfortunately, the mission itself has become a political issue. Prior to 2006, NASA's mission statement read:

To understand and protect our home planet; to explore the universe and search for life; to inspire the next generation of explorers … as only NASA can.

In Feb. 2006, the mission statement was “quietly altered” to remove the phrase “to understand and protect our home planet.” Even a year ago, NASA scientists predicted that because of the mission statement revision, there would “be far less incentive to pursue projects to improve understanding of terrestrial problems like climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions.” Top NASA climatologist James Hansen called the deletion “a shocking loss,” because he had “been using the phrase since December 2005 to justify speaking out about the dangers of global warming.”

In fact, in an article last year, Dr. Hansen opined that such maneuvers not only kept the public from information vital to a informed debate on the most serious issue of our time, but threatened the very underpinnings of democracy itself.

"Yet Franklin, Jefferson, and the other revolutionaries would surely be distraught by recent tendencies in America, specifically the increasing power of special interests in our government, concentrated efforts to deceive the public and arbitrary actions of government executives that arise from increasing concentration of authority in a unitary executive, in defiance of the aims of our Constitution's framers......

These incidents help to paint a picture that reveals consequences for society far greater than the simple enrichment of special interests. The effect is to keep the public in the dark about increasing risks to our society and our home planet.

As to the critical role of NASA in collecting data on climate change, that mission continues to be jeopardized by decreased funding for the satellite programs that monitor, among other things, levels of soil moisture and precipitation which feed weather forecasting and climate models.

Texas Tops Nation in Greenhouse Gas Emissions

A recent analysis of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. reveal some surprising numbers. States vary dramatically in their level of emissions. The best predictor of greenhouse gas emissions is a state's use of high-carbon coal to produce electricity.

Some of the trends are predictable. More populous states, for example, emit more gases on average than less populous ones.

And to anyone with even a remote interest in the debate on global warming, it will hardly come as a surprise that Texas tops the nation in emissions of CO2. (And for once, Mississippi isn't even close.) Some of Texas' contribution can be explained by the number of energy-intensive refineries in the state. An analysis of the numbers, though, paints a pretty stark contrast.

Texas, the leader in emitting this greenhouse gas, cranks out more than the next two biggest producers combined, California and Pennsylvania, which together have twice Texas' population.

It's clear that states vary widely, not only in their level of emissions, but in their commitment to reducing them. In fact, with few exceptions, the states producing the most greenhouse gases are the ones doing the least to control them.

On a per person basis, sparsely populated Wyoming tops the list, with 276,000 pounds per person per year. With a little over half a million people, Wyoming is the least populous state in the union, but as the number one coal producer in the nation, it generates virtually all of its electricity from burning coal.

Just next door to the west, Idaho emits the least carbon dioxide per person, less than 23,000 pounds a year. Idaho forbids coal power plants. It relies mostly on nonpolluting hydroelectric power.

Texas, where coal barely edges out natural gas as the top power source, belches more than 1 trillion pounds of carbon dioxide yearly.

The top 10 ranked by total carbon dioxide emissions (in millions of metric tons) in 2003.
The top 10
1. Texas (670)
2. California (389)
3. Pennsylvania (271)
4. Ohio (266)
5. Florida (244)
6. Indiana (235)
7. Illinois (230)
8. New York (214)
9. Michigan (185)
10. Louisiana (179)

Rep. Lon Burnam's Resolution

In the waning days of the 80th legislative session, lawmakers passed hundreds of resolutions honoring fellow Texans. Most of these were hardly newsworthy, but Rep. Lon Burnam's (D-Fort Worth) resolution commending House Parliamentarian Denise Davis and Deputy Parliamentarian Christopher Griesel was an exception.

The two had become the center of attention three days earlier by resigning in protest over House Speaker Tom Craddick's contradictory interpretation of House rules. Their resignations sparked a raucous weekend in the House that some political observers say has permanently weakened Craddick.

In case you didn't follow that story, the parliamentarians resigned when Craddick asserted absolute authority as speaker to block a motion allowing a vote to vacate, which likely would have ended his reign as speaker.

Rep. Burnam has never been much of a fan of Speaker Craddick, long known for using his power to reward loyalists and punish foes. To really appreciate the context of Burnam's resolution, however, you also have to understand something of the history of their relationship. Although opposition to Craddick's leadership reached a tipping point in this legislative session, Burnam's criticism of the Speaker has been longstanding, and he paid a political price. In 2005, Burnam was one of only four Democrats who cast ballots against Craddick's appointment, which landed him on a committee most would not regard as a plum assignment.

..... two of the four Democrats who voted against Craddick ended up on the Agriculture and Livestock Committee – a reappointment for Rep. Lon Burnam of Fort Worth (who landed here after casting the only dissenting vote against Craddick in 2003) [emphasis added] .....

But Burnam is capable of getting in a few licks of his own. Earlier this year, Burnam called for a criminal investigation into charges that Craddick had an improper financial dealings with a state contractor.

Burnam's resolution honoring the the parliamentarians was blocked from coming to the floor. 'Tis a pity. Here is the deleted text of Burnam's resolution.

WHEREAS, Denise Davis and Chris Griesel stood up to autocratic control of a democratic institution by resigning their posts as parliamentarians; and

WHEREAS, Ms. Davis and Mr. Griesel could have given in to dictatorial pressure but instead stood firm and did what they knew was right, even though it cost them their jobs; and

WHEREAS, democratic institutions depend on respect for rules and precedents, Ms. Davis and Mr. Griesel took a stand for democracy on May 25, 2007, otherwise known as the Friday Night Massacre of the House Rules; and

WHEREAS, by resigning to protest a decision that threatened the integrity of the House, Ms. Davis and Mr. Griesel showed great respect for the Rules of the House, the Constitution of the State of Texas, and the institution of the Texas House of Representatives…..

Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.

See also previous post: Drama Over Craddick Continues.

NASA Chief Not Sure Current Climate 'Optimal'

While the Decider-in-Chief is once again using his clout to attempt to water down a report from the upcoming G8 summit urging immediate action to confront the consequences of global warming, his appointee in charge of NASA, Michael Griffin, implies that anyone voicing concerns about climate change is suffering from a God complex.

If you can read this with a straight face, stop reading blogs and get to the nearest casino for a round of Texas Hold 'Em.

Q: Do you have any doubt that this is a problem that mankind has to wrestle with?

Griffin: I have no doubt that … a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change.

First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown.

And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take.

NASA's James Hansen, one of the top scientists on global climate change, called his boss' position "arrogant and ignorant."

It indicates a complete ignorance of understanding the implications of climate change," Hansen told ABC News.

And if you seriously want to know how climate change might impact us here in Texas, here's a preview and it ain't pretty.

Global Warming Tipping Point Only Ten Years Away?

Mention global warming recently, and the attention rightfully turns to Al Gore, who has been hitting the airwaves promoting his new book, The Assault on Reason. One of the topics highlighted in Gore's book is the attempt to subvert science for political purposes. And one man who knows this only too well is NASA scientist James Hansen.

Like Gore, Dr. Hansen has been a tireless advocate on the environmental front. He first testified before Congress to raise awareness of the issue back in the 1980's. As one might expect, Hansen has also been a vocal and determined critic of the Bush administration's policies, or lack thereof, regarding global warming.

In the University of Iowa speech, Hansen recounted how NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe told him in a 2003 meeting that he shouldn't talk "about dangerous anthropogenic interference" -- humans' influence on the atmosphere -- "because we do not know enough or have enough evidence for what would constitute dangerous anthropogenic interference."

But Hansen said that scientists know enough to conclude we have reached this danger point and that their efforts to get the word out are being blocked by the administration. "In my more than three decades in government, I have never seen anything approaching the degree to which information flow from scientists to the public has been screened and controlled as it has now," Hansen said. He added that although the administration wants to wait 10 years to evaluate climate change, "delay of another decade, I argue, is a colossal risk."

Hansen's concern is predicated on the concept of a "tipping point," the point at which the earth's biofeedback mechanisms kick in and warming becomes a runaway process.

As the tipping points pass, "there is an acceleration, potentially uncontrollable, of emissions of vast natural stores of greenhouse gas," according to Hansen.....

The melting ice caps are one example of a biofeedback loop. As warmer temperatures cause the ice to melt...

The disappearance of that bright sea ice and snow is uncovering more and more dark water and bare ground — creating another dangerous feedback loop.

These feedbacks all produce more heat, thus all reinforcing each other, leading to evermore thawing — and thus releases of natural greenhouse gases (including CO2 and methane) in a viciously accelerating circlering more and more dark water and bare ground — creating another dangerous feedback loop.

Given this scenario, some economic advisors are suggesting that the best course of action may be adaptation rather than prevention. Hansen disagrees.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, scenarios modeled by scientists predict CO2 emissions rise to anywhere from a low of 450 ppm (parts per million) to as high as 650 ppm.

Hansen told ABC News today he believes the upper limit for avoiding dangerous climate change "could well be much lower" than 450 ppm.

In the NASA announcement, Hansen said, "'business as usual' emissions would be a guarantee of global and regional disaster."

Earth's CO2 concentration is currently 383 ppm, up from 280 ppm at the start of the industrial age.

Studies released earlier this month report human-made emissions now spiraling upward at an accelerating rate much faster than scientists expected only a few years ago.

But not to worry - after dilly dallying around for six years, President Bush has finally decided the government should take action - after he leaves office.

Drama Over Craddick Continues

If you haven't been following the attempted ouster of Speaker Tom Craddick from the Texas Legislature, you're missing the most excitement since some Democrats went missing a few years ago during the redistricting saga.

The mechanics are a bit complicated, but Craddick (dubbed Auto-Craddick by his detractors for his dictatorial style) is facing a bipartisan movement to elect a new speaker before the end of the session.

The Burnt Orange Report has all the juicy details, including speculation that Lt. Gov. Dewhurst, never a Craddick fan, is lending some behind the scenes support.

Craddick's future hinges on some arcane parliamentarian rules regarding a "motion to vacate." As Speaker, Craddick has prevented the attempted coup by using his role as speaker to block any motion that would lead to his removal. Members argue this is in violation of House rules. (Read his defense and the arguments against.)

In the meantime, some local representatives have signaled their support for Craddick.

Euless Republican Todd Smith called the speakers position an "abuse of power," while supporter Myra Crownover, a Republican from Denton, called Mr. Smith and the other critics "anarchists."

Diane Patrick, R-Arlington, is seen lending a sympathetic ear to the embattled speaker.

The drama overshadows last minute attempts to move some bills in the legislature, which is sure to make for some interesting political football down the road. Speculation hints that the showdown may leave the budget bill unfinished, mandating a special session later this summer.

Republicans Throw in the Towel on Voter ID Bill

What has been one of the most dramatic stories of the legislative session drew to a close this evening when Lt. Gov. Dewhurst agreed not to bring up HB218, a bill that would require voters to show an ID at the polls, and sent an exhausted and ailing Senator Gallegos home.

The admission of defeat on the bill, which [Dewhurst] had confidently predicted would pass the GOP-dominated Senate, came when he sent home state Sen. Mario Gallegos, D-Houston, an ailing senator who had been in the chamber for the past few days to give the Democrats the votes they needed to block the bill.

Gallegos is recovering from a liver transplant, and doctors fear that his body might reject the organ he received in January......

“He’s looking tired,” Dewhurst told reporters, saying that if Gallegos left the Senate before the Wednesday midnight deadline to pass bills, Dewhurst would not bring up the voter ID bill.

Gallegos said he thanked Dewhurst, the Senate’s presiding officer, for the gesture.

He said that remaining in Austin despite doctors’ orders that he stay close to home “really took a lot out of me, both from the stress and from the illness.

“But it was worth it,” Gallegos said. “Voter ID is a bad bill.”

We thank the Senator and wish him a speedy recovery. As for Dewhurst, better late than never. Keep in mind, he dismissed Gallegos only in the waning hours of the session, when it became clear that Democrats would be able to filibuster any last minute attempt to pass the bill.

Senator Gallegos Returns to Austin to Block Voter ID Bill

The ailing senator from Harris County, Mario Gallegos, is back in Austin this week despite warnings from his doctors that he is jeopardizing his health to do so. After casting the decisive vote last week to block introduction of the voter ID bill, HB 218, Sen. Gallegos underwent a liver biopsy on Friday. Tests confirmed that his body is rejecting his new liver.

Because the senator's presence is needed to prevent re-introduction of the bill, Gallegos returned to the Senate floor yesterday. In an interview with the Star-Telegram, he lays out his reasons for returning, and gives Lt. Gov. Dewhurst a pass for last week's controversial vote:

Question: Why is this issue important enough to risk your health, and perhaps your life?
Answer: "I can remember my grandmother, who was born in Mexico and became a citizen. She would not be able to vote if this bill had been the law of the land.

"I haven't heard any complaints, at least in my district, that illegal aliens are voting. I haven't heard of a single instance since 1991, when I took office" as a state representative.

Q: The session ends May 28, but the last day to pass the bill without resorting to extraordinary parliamentary maneuvers is midnight Wednesday. Will you be in the Senate until then?
A: "They have a hospital bed here for me if I need it. It's a big enough issue for me that I have to be here. As long as I can stand, I'll be here.”

Q: If you are unable to remain at least available to return to the Senate floor, do you expect your Democratic colleagues to filibuster the bill until the clock runs out?
A: "We're pretty united on this. I'm going to try to buy them all the time I can."

Q: Do you agree that supporters of the bill make valid points?
A: "I respect their point of view. They are following polls that show their constituencies want this."

Q: Considering the status of your health, shouldn't the lieutenant governor just take the issue of voter ID off the table for the remainder of the session?
A: "No. If you have your votes, you move your bill. If I was Dewhurst, I'd do the same thing."

You can read further coverage of this story at Texas Kaos, Dos Centavos, and Eye on Williamson County.

Voter Suppression and Politics at the Justice Department

If the scuttle over political appointees at the Justice Department draws yawns instead of outrage, perhaps it would be helpful to present a little object lesson in the form of one Justice Department civil rights lawyer named Hans von Spakovsky. The story serves to highlight the on-going attempt to subvert career civil service positions for political ends, and further emphasizes why defeating the pending Texas voter ID bill is so critical.

Greg Gordon has some great coverage of the story (here, here and here.)

For six years, the Bush administration, aided by Justice Department political appointees, has pursued an aggressive legal effort to restrict voter turnout in key battleground states in ways that favor Republican political candidates.....

Facing nationwide voter registration drives by Democratic-leaning groups, the administration alleged widespread election fraud and endorsed proposals for tougher state and federal voter identification laws. Presidential political adviser Karl Rove alluded to the strategy in April 2006 when he railed about voter fraud in a speech to the Republican National Lawyers Association.

First, a little background on von Spakovsky. If you want to know why Senator Harry Reid is planning on reconvening the Senate every ten days during the summer, look no farther than President Bush's December 2005 recess appointment of Hans von Spakovsky to the Federal Election Commission. The New York Times opined after his appointment:

[von Spakovsky is] a former Republican county chairman in Georgia and a political appointee at the Justice Department. He is reported to have been involved in the maneuvering to overrule the career specialists at Justice who warned that the Texas gerrymandering orchestrated by Representative Tom DeLay violated minority voting rights. Senators need the opportunity to delve into that, as well as reports of Mr. von Spakovsky’s involvement in such voting rights abuses as the purging of voter rolls in Florida in the 2000 elections.

Yeah, you knew there would be a Texas connection in there somewhere, didn't you? The redistricting plan was later ruled unconstitutional. And the purge of the Florida voting roles disenfranchised enough legitimate voters to give the presidency to Bush. As a key Republican operative, von Spakovsky brought those same goals to his four-year stint at the Justice Department as a civil rights lawyer.

"Mr. von Spakovsky was central to the administration's pursuit of strategies that had the effect of suppressing the minority vote," charged Joseph Rich, a former Justice Department voting rights chief who worked under him.

He and other former career department lawyers say that von Spakovsky steered the agency toward voting rights policies not seen before, pushing to curb minor instances of election fraud by imposing sweeping restrictions that would make it harder, not easier, for Democratic-leaning poor and minority voters to cast ballots.

During his stint at the Justice Department, von Spakovksy

• Sped approval of tougher voter-ID laws in Georgia and Arizona in 2005, joining decisions to override career lawyers who believed that Georgia's law would restrict voting by poor blacks and who felt that more analysis was needed on the Arizona law's impact on Indians and Latinos.

• Tried to influence the federal Election Assistance Commission's research into the dimensions of voter fraud nationally and the impact of restrictive voter-ID laws -- research that could undermine a vote-suppression agenda.

• Allegedly engineered the ouster of the commission's chairman, Paul DiGregorio, whom von Spakovsky considered insufficiently partisan.

Just how effective are voter ID laws in suppressing turnout for Democrats?

Among Republicans it is an "article of religious faith that voter fraud is causing us to lose elections," Masset [former political director of the Republican Party of Texas] said. He doesn't agree with that, but does believe that requiring photo IDs could cause enough of a dropoff in legitimate Democratic voting to add 3 percent to the Republican vote.

Now it might be a little clearer why Lt. Gov. Dewhurst, who obviously has higher ambitions, is so keen to do the administration's bidding that he would resort to last week's procedural tactic to pass the Texas voter ID bill. Say a little prayer for Senator Gallegos and let's hope that the Senate Republicans still have a conscience.

Texas Voter ID Bill in Limbo

After last week's drama (reported here) over the Texas voter ID bill, questions remain as to whether Lt. Gov. Dewhurst will attempt passage this week.

Ailing Sen. Mario Gallegos' absence from the Capitol leaves his fellow Democratic state senators one vote shy of a procedural tool they can use to block legislation.

Republicans did not take advantage of the situation Friday to force a vote on a contentious bill that would require voters to present identification, which Democrats have blocked.

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, who presides over the Senate, said senators told him they "didn't want to take it up today out of respect for Senator Gallegos." But he was noncommittal about his plans for next week, saying he believes a vast majority of Texans support the idea.

"We'll see," he said. "I would like to see it passed."

Democrats are on high alert for the last week of the session.

Democrats won't disclose how they will respond if Dewhurst brings the voter ID bill up for debate.

Options could include breaking quorum or filibustering, either of which would kill other legislation in the waning days of the session.

"I'm not going to expose our strategy," said Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, D-San Antonio, chair of the Senate Democratic Caucus. "We're looking at this on a day-by-day situation. Certainly, the Senate realizes that we have really important bills and work that needs to get done."

She warned that bringing up the voter ID bill would distract from the Senate's need to finish work on budget, transportation, border security and air quality bills.

It is not known whether Gallegos is out for the remainder of the session.

Vote in TCAN Poll

The True Courage Action Network is conducting a poll .....

honoring the best efforts of legislators and advocates who have shown courage relating to TCAN's mission to restore strong ethical standards, government transparency, and electoral reform and voter protection during this legislative session.

Among the names nominated in the Texas State Senate is Senator Eliot Shapleigh, nominated for his Texas on the Brink reports.

And the Texas House of Representative nominees include Rafael Anchia, D-Dallas, for his fight against voter ID bills and Fort Worth's Lon Burnam. Burnam, who joined Anchia in that fight, was nominated for his attempts to reform the Texas Ethics Commission.

And don't forget to vote for Texas Progressive Bloggers in the Texas Advocate category. If you need convincing, check out some of the blogs on our list to the right. You have until May 20 at noon to register your vote.

texas democrats block voter id bill

In the Texas Senate, the Democrats hold 11 seats. 21 senators must agree to bring a bill up for consideration, so the Democrats can effectively block legislation if they vote as a bloc.

But they also have to have their votes counted.

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst tried to pull a fast one today, when the Senate was voting on the Voter ID Bill (HB 128). One Democratic senator wasn't on the floor because he was ill, and another that was there didn't even get his vote counted.

When the vote total, 19-9, was announced, chaos ensued, according to the Houston Chronicle.

[The Democrats] revolted after the original 19-9 vote was revealed, loudly arguing that Sen. John Whitmire was on the floor but his no vote wasn't counted.

"Right is right. Wrong is wrong. You tell the man I have a right to have my vote counted," Whitmire growled at his Republican colleagues. He later slammed his fist on his desk, prompting Dewhurst to threaten to kick him out of the chamber.

"You're going to compose yourself or you're going to leave the floor," the Republican lieutenant governor said.

Dewhurst insisted that he had given Whitmire plenty of time to cast his vote and resisted Democrats' calls for a re-vote. But he eventually agreed to conduct another vote, insisting it wasn't going to change the outcome.

But by that time, the Democrats were able to vote as a block, with ill Sen. Carlos Uresti returning to the chamber and Sen. Whitmire's vote being tallied (plus another Republican making it to the floor), and the legislation was blocked by a vote of 20-11.

election results: arlington, fort worth, grapevine, haltom city, keller, mansfield

Arlington
Robert Cluck was re-elected to the position of Mayor of Arlington. In District 3, incumbent Robert Rivera defeated challenger Marvin Sutton. Kathryn Wilemon, Lana Wolff and Gene Patrick also return to the council.

Fort Worth
Mayor Mike Moncrief was re-elected in a landslide with over 80% of the vote. Also, all of the incumbents on the council were re-elected: Sal Espino, Chuck Silcox, Danny Scarth, Carter Burdette, Kathleen Hicks and Wendy Davis.

Grapevine
In Grapevine, Place 1 voters will have to decide between Traci Wilkinson and Mike Lease in a runoff election. In Place 4, incumbent Darlene Freed handily won re-election.

Haltom City
Incumbent Bill Lanford returns as Mayor, and on his coattails, so do incumbent council members Jim Sutton, Christopher Holcomb and Diane Bransom.

Keller
Challenger Pat McGrail defeated incumbent Mayor Julie Tandy, and in Place 1, incumbent Steve Trine lost to newcomer Ray Brown.

Mansfield
In Mansfield, it was another sad night for incumbents: the new mayor is Barton Scott, who defeated Mel Neuman for the job; Mary Ann Johnston lost her Place 1 seat to her opponent, Mike Leyman.

Election results via Fort Worth Star-Telegram and Tarrant County Elections.

leppert, oakley face off again in june election

Eleven candidates sought to replace Laura Miller as Mayor of Dallas, and now only two remain: Tom Leppert and Councilman Ed Oakley.

This is an interesting (almost) end to an exhausting race. And according to the Dallas Morning News, the results don't come cheap.

This has been the most expensive mayoral race in Dallas history, with more candidates than anyone can remember.

The candidates together have spent more than $4.5 million by Election Day. That’s more than any previous campaign, and it doesn’t include the money runoff candidates will spend.

The runoff is June 16, so save the date. And expect NTL to make an endorsement in the race before that time.

election results: bartonville, double oak, flower mound, highland village, lewisville

Bartonville
Incumbents Carla Anderson and James Ashburn were re-elected, and newcomer Bill Reaves joins the Town Council. Bartonville residents also approved beer and wine sales in the town by a handy margin.

Double Oak
In a heated race that centered on a tax rise, Councilwoman Pamela King defeated Councilman Tracy Scott Miller to become the town's next mayor. Mike Donnelly and Jerry Lamel join the Town Council, defeating Chuck Bimmerle and incumbent Tom Pidcock.

Flower Mound
Flower Mound residents took to the polls to re-elect their leaders: Joel Lindsey, Tim Trotter and Jeff Tasker all return after soaring victories to the Town Council, defeating feisty opponents Michelle Pacifico and Jack Stufflebam that engaged a campaign around the current council's alleged unfriendliness toward business development in the town. Voters also approved a host of charter amendments.

Highland Village

Uncontested incumbents Austin Adams and Brian Fiorenza were re-elected to the council, but after an upset victory by Jon Calvin in Place 7, they will not be joined by their preferred candidate, Highland Village Unite-endorsed Pete Silva.

Lewisville
Voters will have to trek to the polls again, as a heavily-contested race will now lead to a runoff between the two candidates that received the most votes: Lathan Watts and Ron Aljoe.

Election results via Lantana Links, WhosPlayin?, and Flower-Mound.com.

vote today

We apologize for the hiatus we've accidentally hit upon this month, but would like to remind you nonetheless to get out to the polls today before 7 p.m.!

Readers, please leave any recommendations on who to vote for in the comments.

In the city of Dallas, NTL likes more than one candidate for mayor, but in Place 12 we can wholeheartedly recommend the progressive candidate, John McClelland.

In Arlington, we'd like to recommend a vote for Marvin Sutton in Place 3, and so would several Star-Telegram readers.

In Flower Mound, we recommend re-electing the incumbents (Lindsey, Tasker and Trotter) and in Highland Village we recommend Pete Silva.

Anyone else have any suggestions for North Texas voters? Keep us in the loop in the comments!

bush vetoes war spending bill over timetable

During the attack ads next year running up to the election, the conservatives will no longer be able to use their favorite line: "The Democrats don't have a plan."

Why not? Because the Democrats do have a plan. And they put it before Congress in the form of the 2007 U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act. This legislation, having passed both the House (218-208) and Senate (51-46), approved $124 billion in funding for the Iraq war, but also gave a timetable for withdrawal.

Today, President Bush vetoed the bill.

So the Democrats put forth a comprehensive plan on how to clean up the president's mess, but he rejected it. What more can the Democrats do at this point? Yes, the Democrats have a majority in both houses of Congress, but the majority isn't large enough to override the president's veto unless the bill garners more bipartisan support. An attempt to override has been scheduled for tomorrow in the House of Representatives.

If the president will remain immovably stubborn on this costly issue, there is nothing else that the Democrats can do besides utilize the power of the purse. It will take time to work out the best approach: should the Democrats immediately cut funding, refusing to reintroduce legislation that would re-authorize the president the use of that same $124 billion that he vetoed today? Or will they take a more subtle route? Or, will they force the Republicans to face the consequences of their mistakes as a Democratic president is ushered into office in 2008?

Whatever happens in the coming months, keep in mind that President Bush started this unpopular war in Iraq, and today in the Oval Office he used a red stamp that spits in the face of the majority of Americans. At the same time, he assured us that our troops will face the continued chaos and danger of the battlefield indefinitely. No wonder his approval rating is only 28%.