Category Archives: State news

Political ads starting to fly

Here we go.

Three weeks until Election Day and Texans are starting to get a gut full of TV ads — mostly of the negative variety.

It’s going to get nasty, ladies and gents.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/wendy-davis-greg-abbott-wheelchair-ad-111783.html?cmpid=sf

Democratic gubernatorial nominee Wendy Davis has just released a brutal ad attacking Republican opponent Greg Abbott over his work against others seeking assistance in the wake of catastrophic illness and injury. The ad, though, makes specific mention of the crippling injury Abbott suffered as a young man when a tree fell on him, leaving him paralyzed. It notes that Abbott sued and won millions of dollars, but has worked to deny others the same sort of award.

A group called Texans for Greg Abbott has released a radio ad alleging that Davis has used her position as a legislator and, before that, as a Fort Worth city councilwoman for personal gain.

The Davis ad attacking Abbott has drawn some serious criticism. Politico reports: “‘It is challenging to find language strong enough to condemn Sen. Davis’ disgusting television ad, which represents a historic low for someone seeking to represent Texans,’ said Abbott spokeswoman Amelia Chasse. ‘Sen. Davis’ ad shows a disturbing lack of judgment from a desperate politician and completely disqualifies her from seeking higher office in Texas.’”

I’m left to ask: Is the ad false? I cannot find a falsehood in the information presented.

Same for the anti-Davis ad I heard this morning on the radio.

People keep saying how much they detest negative advertising. I have said it myself from time to time. However, the political gurus who manage these campaigns know what works. They craft these ads because voters respond to them.

So it will be for the rest of this campaign in Texas. The state ballot is full of contested races that are bound to produce more than their share of negativity.

Get ready for it.

Voter ID = poll tax

A federal judge has stuck it to Texas’s desire to require photo identification for everyone wanting to vote.

She did so with unflinching language. This fight is going to get interesting.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/10/09/federal-judge-rules-texas-voter-id-law-unconstitut/

The Texas Tribune reports: “’The Court holds that SB 14 creates an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, has an impermissible discriminatory effect against Hispanics and African-Americans, and was imposed with an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose,’ U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos of Corpus Christi wrote in a 147-page opinion. ‘The Court further holds that SB 14 constitutes an unconstitutional poll tax.’”

Oh yes. Ramos was appointed to the federal bench by President Barack Obama.

Now what? The state has vowed to file an immediate appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fifth Circuit needs to decide quickly if this matter is to be settled in time for the Nov. 4 mid-term election.

I have to hand it to Judge Ramos. She stood tall against voter suppression, which is what voter ID appears to be — to me, at least.

The Texas voter ID law requires voters to produce some form of photo identification when they go to the polls. Opponents of the law enacted in 2011 contend that it discriminates against minority voters who might not have, say, a driver’s license, a passport, a concealed firearm permit or any other valid form of photo ID.

To obtain such identification requires significant expense in some cases, voter ID foes argue, and that comprises what they contend is an unconstitutional “poll tax.”

Across the country where voter ID laws have been in force, the laws are the result of Republican-controlled state governments. That’s not unusual by itself. However, the politics of these laws requires one to wonder out loud: Is this done to suppress the vote among residents who might tend to vote, umm, Democratic?

The alleged bogeyman in this is voter fraud. According to the Texas Tribune: “The state maintains the law ensures the security of the ballots cast by voters and prevents voter fraud. Attorneys for the state argued that there is no evidence the law will keep legitimate voters from voting. Attorneys challenging the law said there is little evidence of the kind of in-person voter fraud the law is intended to prevent.”

Another question: Is voter fraud such a huge matter in Texas that it requires a law such as this?

Instances of voter fraud over the course of many election cycles comprise a minuscule amount.

I’ll leave it to state Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, to put this matter in what I believe is its proper perspective:

“Texas has a long and sad history of making it difficult for people to vote. Elected officials repeatedly used the law to keep people out of the voting booth. Decades later, history rightly judges those men and women in a harsh light. As the court ruled, the voter ID law is essentially a modern day poll tax and has the same effect as other laws used in decades past to keep scores of lawful, legal Americans from voting. It was wrong then, it is wrong now, and I’m pleased the court stood up to protect the right to vote for all Texans.”

The fight isn’t over. Not by a long shot.

Ebola patient dies; now, let's stay calm

Thomas Eric Duncan has died of Ebola.

He came to Dallas from Liberia carrying the virus that causes the disease. He checked into a hospital and was given the best treatment possible anywhere in the world. Still, the disease killed him.

It’s a sad end to a man’s life.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/10/08/dallas-patient-diagnosed-ebola-dies/

Now what? Do we panic? Do we quarantine the entire hospital staff? Or those who came into this man’s room?

Not at all.

Yes, I blogged recently about the difficulty of maintaining my composure when Duncan arrived in Dallas, given that I have immediate family members living in the Metroplex. My head has cleared since then.

I hope we start listening to the medical experts who are saying the same thing — over and over, repeatedly. The only way one can catch the killer disease is to come in direct contact with someone who’s infected.

CNN’s coverage of this “crisis,” as usual, has been a bit overblown — in my humble view. The network’s reporters and anchors keep harping on the crisis aspect of the disease in West Africa — and it’s real. However, I am concerned about what it’s doing to the American psyche as it relates to this disease.

Yet the network is trotting out infectious disease experts from all over creation to tell us that a single case of Ebola in one American city should not be cause to push panic buttons, or to sound sirens, or send people into undisclosed secure locations.

If this situation is going to produce any positive outcome, it might be this: We’ve got a lot of brilliant medical researchers right here in the U.S. of A. who are quite capable of finding it. If the Ebola scare has done anything at all, I am hopeful it has scared researchers into redoubling their efforts at finding a cure.

ISIL threat: real or imagined?

Here’s my fervent hope for the moment: it is for otherwise responsible members of Congress to quit saying things they cannot prove beyond any doubt — not just reasonable doubt.

U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., says at least 10 Islamic State fighters have been captured on our southern border.

Not so, says Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/isil-us-border-homeland-security-duncan-hunter-111722.html?hp=l8

Who’s telling the truth?

My relative lack of cynicism leads me to believe the guy in charge of protecting the homeland. That would be Secretary Johnson.

“Let’s not unduly create fear and anxiety in the American public by passing on speculation and rumor,” Johnson told CNN.

Rep. Hunter is feeding the national anxiety over the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

Does he have proof that these individuals were apprehended and they, indeed, are members of the monstrous terrorist organization? No. Johnson replies that his agency has seen no “credible intelligence” that ISIL is at our southern doorstep, ready to cross into the U.S. territory and begin its reign of terror on unsuspecting and innocent Americans.

There is, though, another way to look at this matter.

It is that Border Patrol, Immigration and Naturalization Service, the FBI and local police authorities are on their toes. Suppose they are capturing individuals linked to ISIL. Wouldn’t that mean they’re doing their job?

I’ll stick with Secretary Johnson’s assessment that the situation lacks “credible intelligence” to suggest ISIL is on the march in North America.

We need physical proof, folks, that this is happening. And I’m not talking about fuzzy photos that Bigfoot believers produce to “prove” the existence of a mythical creature.

Let’s deal in reality and forgo the fiction.

Abbott is swimming in campaign cash

Greg Abbott has become a fundraising dynamo in his campaign for governor, which a lot of observers think he’s going to win next month.

He’s got an estimated $30 million in the bank. He won’t spend it all, according to the Texas Tribune.

What’s the deal?

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/10/08/brief/

It appears he’s saving it up for the next campaign in 2018, which could get serious if another Republican — state Sen. Dan Patrick — is elected lieutenant governor.

Patrick might be so darn full of himself that he’ll want to challenge Abbott for governor in four years. I’m worried far less about Patrick’s challenge of Abbott than I worry about what kind of governor Abbott would become.

Here’s the deal.

If Abbott wants to fend off a challenge from the right wing of his party, he’ll have to govern from the far right. That means he’ll let loose with fiery rhetoric about border security, working with Texas congressional Republicans to repeal the Affordable Care Act, appointing right-wing ideologues to all those boards and commissions and perhaps even raising the specter of secession when the moment presents itself.

There might be a formidable Democrat out there who’ll challenge a Gov. Abbott in 2018. Let’s not kid ourselves, though, about where the stiffest challenge might present itself.

It’ll come from within the Republican Party.

As the Tribune reports: “The target of this cash juggernaut, of course, may not be a Democrat at all, but rather GOP lieutenant governor candidate Dan Patrick, who as (Austin American-Statesman reporter Jonathan) Tilove writes, ‘would like to be governor someday.'”

Therein lies the concern of where an Abbott governorship will take the state in the meantime.

Abbott gets cash from Claytie Williams

This one flew across my radar today. I cannot let it go without a brief comment.

One-time presumptive “frontrunner” for Texas governor Clayton Williams has given a six-figure donation to the campaign of current presumptive frontrunner Greg Abbott.

Oh, my. I need to catch my breath.

There. It’s back.

You’ll remember Claytie Williams. In 1990, he snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in his race for governor when he ran against then-Texas Treasurer Ann Richards. He was leading in most reputable polls. The Republican Midland oil man was a shoo-in.

Then he did two very stupid things:

* First, he refused to shake Democrat Richards’ hand at a public event. He called her a liar. Cameras all across the state captured that magical moment. Williams offended many Texans by refusing to take a lady’s hand. You don’t do that in Texas, Claytie.

That wasn’t the worst of it.

* He then compared rape to the weather. He said a woman who’s about to be sexually assaulted and brutalized by a man should think of it as bad weather and just sit back and relax.

Richards then became the state’s governor.

I am wondering if another high-profile Abbott supporter, has-been rocker Ted Nugent — who’s got his own history of sexual criminal activity in his background — is going to pony up some big cash for his man, the attorney general.

I’m now waiting for Claytie and the Motor City Madman to make a joint appearance together on behalf of the man they’re supporting for Texas governor.

Ain’t politics fun?

Cruz now favors activist federal government

Ted Cruz keeps giving me — and others — so much grist for commentary.

The freshman Texas Republican U.S. senator now has this doozy of an idea. Let’s amend the U.S. Constitution to prevent states from overturning bans on same-sex marriage.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/10/06/cruz-amend-us-constitution-preserve-marriage-bans/

This comes from a tea party darling, someone who’s railed time and again during his still-brief time in the Senate over federal government overreach into states’ business.

Not so, however, when it comes to one more issue that now needs to become part of the federal Constitution.

Oh, Ted. Keep delivering these hits. Please.

Cruz got angry at the U.S. Supreme Court over its refusal to hear some state cases involving the overturning of bans on gay marriage. He called it a matter of gross judicial activism. Indeed, as a learned friend of mine noted, the high court exercised “judicial restraint” in refusing to hear these cases.

That won’t deter the runaway freight train aka Ted Cruz.

He’s going to try to get Congress to approve a constitutional amendment that places federal authority over state authority.

I swear I understood Cruz was a champion of states’ rights. What happened?

Oh, I almost forgot. Cruz wants to run for president in 2016 and he’s got to appease that right-wing GOP “base.”

One more reason to detest Ted Cruz

That settles it: Ted Cruz is my least favorite of the 100 men and women who serve in the U.S. Senate.

Why the additional scorn? Well, the freshman Republican from Texas said this about the Supreme Court’s decision to refuse to review state laws banning same-sex marriage:

“This is judicial activism at its worst.”

OK, he said some other stuff too in criticizing the high court. He accused the justices of “abdicating its duty to uphold the Constitution.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/ted-cruz-supreme-court-gay-marriage-111655.html?hp=l7

Judicial activism, eh?

I think I can come up with at least one greater example of judicial activism perpetrated on this nation by the Roberts Court, one of the more so-called “conservative” courts in the nation’s history. Let’s try the Citizens United case.

Remember that one, Ted? That’s the case that determined that corporations are people, too — to borrow Mitt Romney’s (in)famous phrase during the 2012 presidential campaign. The court decided to let corporations spend all the money they wanted on political campaigns, just like regular folks. It determined that multi-zillion-dollar business interests have as much say in determining who gets elected as poor schleps like me who might want to write a $20 check to the candidate of my choice.

So, if you’re a candidate who then gets elected, who are you going to listen to more intently: the mega corporation or the individual contributor?

That, Sen. Cruz, is how I would define judicial activism.

This label often is used by conservatives to rip apart liberal judicial rulings. These critics, such as Cruz, ignore at their peril their own brand of judicial activism.

The Roberts Court showed it can be as activist as, say, the Warren Court was in the 1950s.

Cruz surely knows this.

A dear friend of mine who visited my wife and me this past weekend served in government and journalism for more than 40 years. He said of Cruz, who he described as “smart as they come”:

“Intelligence is inherited. Wisdom must be earned.”

Ebola becomes political football

Let’s call it the politics of Ebola.

Politico reports that some of the presumptive Republican candidates for president in 2016 are shouting “panic!” at the prospect of the deadly virus infecting the United States of America.

Not all of them, mind you, are saying such things.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry — along with President Obama, if you can believe that — suggests it’s better to stay calm and cool as medical professionals seek to contain the single known case that ended up in Dallas.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/gop-republicans-elections-2016-ebola-panic-111597.html?hp=r15

Yes, it’s a concern. A man flew from Liberia to Texas while carrying the Ebola virus. He is in critical condition. But his status has been upgraded a bit to stable. He is undergoing intense medical care at a Dallas hospital, where he is receiving the best care possible.

Meanwhile, GOP politicians are calling for an immediate ban on all flights from West Africa to the United States.

And, of course they’re saying the Obama administration isn’t doing enough to fight the virus. They’re scattering out over right-wing talk radio and TV and proclaiming their intense concern that the president isn’t sounding sufficient alarm over the Ebola case that found its way to Dallas.

There will be more intense airport screening of inbound passengers, the president has assured. There also will be greater vigilance at the outbound end of flights headed for the United States and other countries.

These measures haven’t stopped some of the GOP candidates in waiting. As Politico reports, “Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky declared on ‘The Laura Ingraham Show’ that ‘this could get beyond our control’ and worried, ‘Can you imagine if a whole ship full of our soldiers catch Ebola?’”

How about settling down just a bit?

The next political campaign will get into full swing in due course. Cooler heads think better than those that are overheated with political ambition.

Same-sex marriage tide has turned

The currents have turned in favor of same-sex marriage.

Who knows? It well might be accepted as part of the “new normal” in this country, if the courts continue to have their way.

http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/texas/article/State-by-state-look-at-gay-marriage-bans-5804228.php

One by one, state bans on same-sex marriage are falling victim to that little ol’ provision in the U.S. Constitution that protects people’s “equal protection of the laws.”

It’s in the 14th Amendment. It’s one small clause in one small sentence. It resonates loudly in appellate courtrooms all across the country.

Even the U.S. Supreme Court — that bastion of “strict construction” arguments of the U.S. Constitution — has ruled that the federal government must recognized state-sanctioned same-sex marriage. Texas has joined the parade of states that are awaiting final disposition of this argument.

I remain on the fence on this issue. The term “marriage,” to me at least, carries a traditional connotation in that it involves the union of a man and a woman.

Having noted that, I am not going to condemn anyone who wants to marry someone of the same sex. It’s not my call to determine who people should love. I’ll let the government sort it out. I’ll continue to live my traditional life in marriage to a woman I married 43 years ago. And I will let others live as they choose.

Furthermore, none of these court rulings puts my marriage in any danger. It will survive quite nicely and I am sure it will continue to grow and flourish without any threat from whatever the courts continue to rule.

Tradition and belief systems aside, though, the Constitution does appear to stand in favor of all Americans regardless of their orientation. If it says that all Americans must not be deprived “equal protection” under the law, that it means all Americans. There’s not a word in that clause that mentions their sexual orientation.

“All” means all, yes?