Tag Archives: Paul Burka

Uncategorized

Texas GOP spoils it

Just about the time I express faith that the Republican Party may be coming to its senses, along comes a veteran Texas political observer to remind me that the Texas GOP operates in a parallel universe.

Paul Burka’s most recent blog for Texas Monthly laments the “Triumph of the Know-Nothings” in this mid-term election season.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/triumph-know-nothings

He points to the “Republican civil war” raging along many fronts. GOP candidates are trying to outflank each other on the right, as if the mainstream Texas Republican Party — such as it is — isn’t conservative enough.

I’ve already noted that the GOP runoff for railroad commissioner illustrates the nastiness within the party, with foes Ryan Sitton and Wayne Christian battling to see which one of them can be seen in more photo-op shots with U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz. Political action groups have accused Christian of being a “greenie” as it regards energy policy — as if that’s somehow a negative.

Burka writes: “This is the worst election campaign season in my memory. Everything has been organized to elect the most radical candidates on the ballot, those who are the farthest to the right. The result will be the triumph of the know-nothings.”

With tea party candidates getting the boot in states like Kentucky, Georgia, Idaho and Oregon, I had thought that perhaps the GOP had realized the only way it could compete for the soul of the national electorate would be to nominate candidates with a modicum of sense. In Texas, according to Burka, the opposite appears to be playing out.

“Vast sums of dark money are pouring into the state to influence the election. Michael Quinn Sullivan and the tea parties are running the show.” Burka writes.

Now I’m getting scared.

Uncategorized

Judges aren't elected for a good reason

Politics has no place on judicial bench.

That is why folks on the far right are so wrong to lambaste “unelected judges” for ruling as they do, particularly when their rulings go against the right wing’s tightly held agenda.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/unelected-judges

Paul Burka makes an important point in his blog about Sen. Ted Cruz’s criticism of a federal judge’s ruling that threw out Texas’s ban on gay marriage as being unconstitutional. Cruz used the right wing canard about unelected judges being accountable to no one.

That’s the way the U.S. Constitution was written by the founders. It’s strange to hear so-called “strict constructionists” argue against that very provision. Voters elect presidents, who then have the power to appoint judges to the federal bench. If you dislike the philosophies of the judges, then voters’ only option is to elect presidents who will appoint judges more to your liking.

As a counterpoint to the federal system, look at how many states select their judges. Texas’s system, I should add, is no great shakes. We elect our judges on partisan ballots; they run under political parties’ banners. Do you think their decisions are influenced by partisan pressure? In Texas, judges are every bit the politician that define county commissioners, legislators and the governor.

I rather prefer the federal model in which presidents appoint judges, who then are tasked with interpreting the U.S. Constitution. They get it right and they get it wrong. If they make the correct decisions, then so much the better. If they go the wrong way, well, we have Congress and the president to work together to fix the law.

My strong preference — to the extent that it is possible — to keep politics off the federal bench.

Uncategorized

Creationism has no place in classroom

Paul Burka is absolutely correct in criticizing the four Republican candidates for Texas lieutenant governor and their insistence that creationism should be taught in Texas public schools.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/last-call-candidates-lieutenant-governor

The Texas Monthly editor/blogger took note of their “genuflection” to religious doctrine and said quite correctly that the biblical version of Earth’s creation should be caught in church.

It’s long bothered me that some have held creationism — which essentially is scripture’s version of the world’s beginning as told in the Book of Genesis — on the same level as evolution. One of my former journalism colleagues is fond of referring to evolution as a “theory” in the same vein as creationism. Well, it isn’t.

Yes, evolution is a “theory” but it is substantiated by mountains of scientific data that suggests that the planet was created over billions of years. Paleontologists have uncovered countless fossil remains of prehistoric creatures that aren’t mentioned in the Bible. T-Rex et al aren’t in the Good Book, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t exist.

I won’t go on and on about evolution.

Nor will I say the Bible is incorrect. I happen to believe in both notions, that evolution and creationism aren’t mutually exclusive.

I also happen to believe that one of them should be taught in school, the other one should be taught in church.

One is based on science. The other is based on faith.

I just wish the four Republicans who want to be our next lieutenant governor would understand that as well.

Uncategorized

‘Grudge match’ emerges in Senate District 31

Texas Monthly editor/blogger Paul Burka has spilled the beans on the motive for the race that’s developing in Texas Senate District 31.

Turns out, according to Burka, that former Midland Mayor Mike Canon was recruited to run against Sen. Kel Seliger by Michael Quinn Sullivan, the tea party activist and political operator.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/late-filings

There’s plenty of bad blood between Seliger and Sullivan.

Seliger, indeed, has told me repeatedly over the years that he cannot stomach Sullivan’s hyper-conservative world view and the obstructionism he promotes within the Texas Legislature.

So, there you have it. My concern about Canon appears to be playing out. He’s running to Seliger’s right. I am guessing he’ll tack far to the right of the former Amarillo mayor.

Canon will want to do away with the Senate’s two-thirds rule, the one that requires 21 senators to approve any bill that goes to a vote. He’s likely to push hard to the right on issues such as immigration, state spending on public education and some environmental policies.

Seliger hardly has been a screaming lefty on all or any of these issues. If it’s true, as Burka suggests, that this challenge is the product of Sullivan’s personal antipathy toward Seliger, then the state — not to mention the West Texas Senate district Seliger represents — would be ill-served if voters turn against the incumbent.

Uncategorized

Smithee for House speaker? Don’t think so

Paul Burka, the estimable Texas Monthly editor and blogger, is one of the smarter Texas political analysts around.

I like his analyses — most of the time. I have to disagree with his view that Republican state Rep. John Smithee of Amarillo may be angling for a shot at becoming the next speaker of the Texas House of Representatives.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/does-john-smithee-want-be-speaker

He’s posted a couple of blog items wondering out loud about Smithee’s aspirations in the wake of his emceeing an event in Tyler involving some tea part Republicans.

Burka notes that Smithee voted against the House budget this past session. It’s a big deal, Burka said, because Smithee chairs the House Insurance Committee, thanks to Speaker Joe Straus’s appointment powers.

Burka asserts further that Smithee appears to have a following among members of the tea party wing of the Republican Party, who don’t like Straus’s coziness with House Democrats.

Here’s my take: John Smithee is a comfortable as a back-bench member of the House, where he has served quietly since 1985.

He’s been mentioned in recent times as a possible speaker candidate. I have asked him directly about the earlier reports of his alleged interest in becoming the Man of the House. I’ve always thought Smithee to be a pretty direct guy; he answers direct questions with direct answers. His response to the query was that he didn’t like the “political” nature of the speakership. And political it is. It involves a lot of deal-making, cajoling, hand-holding, bullying … all of it and more.

Smithee just doesn’t strike me as the kind of guy who’s comfortable assuming all those responsibilities.

Would he make a good speaker? He has a lot of friends in both legislative chambers — in both parties.

My sense is that he values those relationships more than he values being speaker.

Uncategorized

Impeach Perry? You must be joking

Texas Monthly blogger and columnist Paul Burka poses an interesting — but still ludicrous — question about Gov. Rick Perry.

Has the governor become too entangled in the University of Texas-Austin power struggle to have committed an impeachable offense?

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/perry-and-impeachment

What an amazing thing to wonder about the state of politics in this, of all the 50 states.

Burka’s blog post listed a couple of areas where Perry may have crossed the line into meddling in UT-Austin administrative affairs. Perry, let us remember, is a diehard Texas A&M Aggie — not that it should have anything to do with how he runs his office. However, in this world where conspiracy theories abound in all sorts of places, I suppose one could make the leap that Aggie Perry is trying to muck up the works at the hated UT.

The reality, though, is that Rick Perry never would be impeached in this state, which loves Republicans. Perry is one of them. Both houses of the Texas Legislature, which is where impeachment would originate, comprises supermajorities of Republican members.

What’s more, Perry is nearing the end of his tenure as governor. He’s not running for re-election to his umpteenth term next year. Instead, he’s bowing to likely prepare for yet another — and probably futile — bid for the presidency of the United States.

Impeachment in the cards? Hardly.

Uncategorized

‘Patriots’ becoming a perverted term

Paul Burka is among my favorite Texas political pundits — and he’s nailed it once again in criticizing a video supporting Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott’s campaign for governor.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/greg-abbott-freedom-worth-fighting

The video shows Abbott praising the “patriots” who fight for “freedom.” The patriots to whom he refers, of course, appear to be the tea party warriors who comprise a significant portion of the Texas Republican Party.

Abbott has enlisted as a tea party “patriot” in an attempt to tack to the far right wing of his party.

That takes me to a point that has bothered me since the tea party branch of the GOP began taking root in Texas and the rest of the country.

They call themselves “tea party patriots,” taking sole ownership of the term “patriot” they are so proud to wear. Well, I consider myself as much as a patriot as anyone who boasts of his or her tea party credentials. I am not a tea party follower. I dislike intensely the tea party wing’s view that no government is the best government. They adhere to some notion that it’s all right, for instance, to shut the government down as long as it defunds the Affordable Care Act — ignoring blatantly the effect that such a shutdown would have on those Americans who actually derive some benefit from the services that government delivers.

These folks call themselves “patriots” but their so-called “patriotism” is a version that I don’t recognize.

I kind of consider it a perversion of the term, not unlike the way Islamic terror groups have perverted their own religion or, dare I say it, some so-called Christians (e.g., the Westboro Baptist “Church”) pervert their faith.

I used to think of Greg Abbott as being above that kind of demagoguery.

Silly me.