I Call Bulls**t on TX GOP Chair Steve Munisteri

In an interview with Texas Public Radio, TX GOP Chair Steve Munisteri attributes the passage of "reparative therapy" for gays to a quote: parliamentary trick.  I call bulls**t.

Having attended enough conventions, at least on the Democratic side, from precinct to state senate to state to national, there was no parliamentary trick.

Not ever having attended a Republican convention I have no knowledge of how they do things, but for the Democratic conventions at the state level, the platform usually is passed late on the last day of the convention.  The last day is when we on the Democratic side have the vote for party chair, which can get contentious.  After that vote, the convention moves to start going through the party platform.  This means resolutions upon endless resolutions that most people never stay for (count me as one of those people).

Most delegates are aware of the important or contentious resolutions.  In fact, those are usually brought first because most delegates are still at the convention.

Let's go a step further, most of the time, what the top brass wants, the top brass gets...especially if it avoids embarrassments.

What I'm going to guess is there was no parliamentary trick.  What I suspect happened is that most of the delegates had left by the time of the platform adoption leaving the most fervent supporters of certain items to stay and pass their resolutions.  There wasn't a parliamentary trick.  Munisteri and others were just outmaneuvered.  Their side didn't stay to the bitter end, the other side did.

And there was this gem from TPR:

Texas GOP Chairman Steve Munisteri said the two-week delay in releasing the platform had to do with some clerical errors and nothing to do with controversy surrounding the document.

Again, I call bulls**t.

If I had to guess, a number of people, i.e., wealthy donors, maybe gay Republicans (god what an oxymoron), some elected officials and candidates who were catching flack over the issue, called and complained to the point where Munisteri had to finally issue a statement.

Julian Castro and his After-Cabinet Future

All the chattering classes have pretty much decided that should Mayor Julian Castro become HUD Secretary, he's all but guaranteed the Vice President slot on a presidential ticket led by Hillary Clinton.

So, we were wondering what about past Cabinet members?

At least 86 men and woman have gone on to some other elective office* after serving in a president's cabinet.  *The term is used somewhat loosely since there was a time when for instance U.S. Senators weren't directly elected.

So which department has been the most popular position for appointees to leap from?

What might be thought of nowadays as the least political (in terms of domestic politics) for Cabinet Secretaries has seen the most success.  But when you think about it, it's a pretty good spot to launch a for president from. 16 times a Secretary of State has gone on to elective office after serving in the Cabinet.

Thomas Jefferson: Vice President & President
Timothy Pickering: Massachusetts Senator & Congressman
James Madison: President
James Monroe: President
John Quincy Adams: President
Henry Clay: Kentucky Senator
Martin Van Buren: Vice President & President
John Calhoun: South Carolina Senator
James Buchanan: President
John Clayton: Delaware Senator
Edward Everett: Massachusetts Senator
Daniel Webster: Massachusetts Senator
William Evarts: New York Senator
Elihu Root: New York Senator
Philander Knox: Pennsylvania Senator
James Byrnes: South Carolina Governor

The next most popular is Attorney General. 13 men have gone on to elective office after.

Levi Lincoln: Massachusetts Lt. Gov. & Governor
William Pickney: Maryland Senator
Ceasar Rodney: Delaware Congressman & Senator
John Berrien: Georgia Senator
John Crittenden: Kentucky Senator (Crittenden did it twice. He was AG for William Henry Harrison & John Tyler then was a Kentucky Senator. Then he was AG for Millard Fillmore and then served again as a Kentucky Senator)
Reverdy Johnson: Maryland Senator
Isaac Toucey: Connecticut Senator
George Williams: Portland, OR Mayor
Ebenezer Hoar: Massachusetts Congressman
William Evarts: New York Senator
Judson Harmon: Ohio Governor
Philander Knox: Pennsylvania Senator
Robert Kennedy: New York Senator

After AG there's a 3 way tie.  The positions of Treasury, Navy, & War each saw 12 men have a political career after their stint in the Cabinet.  Navy and War later became Defense.

Only 1 woman has successfully made the leap: Elizabeth Dole (Transportation then Labor): North Carolina Senator.

If you're counting by presidents, John Tyler had 8 men in his Cabinet who went on to political careers afterwards.  William Henry Harrison and Ulysses Grant each had 6.  Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, and James Madison each had 5.

Does USAA Endorse 'Reparative Therapy' for Gays?

A valid question.  Below is a screenshot from the 2014 Texas GOP Convention:

As you can see there are numerous sponsors of the convention.

So the obvious question(s):

Does USAA endorse 'Reparative Therapy' for Gays?
Does Verizon endorse 'Reparative Therapy' for Gays?
Does Saulsbury Industries endorse 'Reparative Therapy' for Gays?
Does Breitling Energy endorse 'Reparative Therapy' for Gays?
Does Time Warner Cable endorse 'Reparative Therapy' for Gays?
Does Altria endorse 'Reparative Therapy' for Gays?
Does Anheuser-Busch endorse 'Reparative Therapy' for Gays?
Does BNSF Railway endorse 'Reparative Therapy' for Gays?
Does Energy Future Holdings endorse 'Reparative Therapy' for Gays?
Does Atmos Energy endorse 'Reparative Therapy' for Gays?
Does CenterPoint Energy endorse 'Reparative Therapy' for Gays?
Does Oncor endorse 'Reparative Therapy' for Gays?
Does the Texas Association of Realtors endorse 'Reparative Therapy' for Gays?
Do the Texas for Fiscal Responsibility endorse 'Reparative Therapy' for Gays?
Does George P. Bush endorse 'Reparative Therapy' for Gays?

I wonder if these companies, organizations, and candidate got their moneys worth?

Gay Marriage Map Update Re: Pennsylvania

And the map got bluer.

Courtesy of Wikipedia we get a new map of gay marriage in the United States.  With the addition of Pennsylvania, we're up to 19* states, plus the District of Columbia, that currently or will recognize same-sex marriage.  *Illinois won't become official until June 1.

I think we'll just categorize those striped states as being bi-marriage states.  They kinda swing both ways.

So what does this mean?

Adding Pennsylvania, and including Illinois, at least 137,000,000 people in the United States live (or will live) in a place where gay marriage is legal.

Gay marriage states account for 191 Representatives (including the delegates) in the U.S. House and 38 Senators in the U.S. Senate.

Percentage wise, that's about 43.5% of the U.S. population and the U.S. House; and 38% of the U.S. Senate.

Broken down by party...U.S. House: 133 Democrats, 58 Republicans. U.S. Senate: 32 Democrats, 4 Republicans, 2 Independents.

Those 19* states account for 231 Electoral Votes. *Including Illinois.

In terms of regions of the U.S:

New England became the first region to legalize gay marriage.  The Mid-Atlantic region has become the second.  With Pennsylvania making it official, the Northeast is now fully pro-marriage equality.

The Midwest will add it's 3rd state with Illinois.  Still 9 to go there.

The Pacific West has 4. (Only Alaska is left)

The Mountain West just has New Mexico.

When using the Census Bureau's designation of the South, there are 3 states* (Delaware, Maryland, & D.C.) that have legalized gay marriage.

What would happen if those bi-marriage states (specifically the red & gold ones) decided to swing to pro-gay marriage?

The number of pro-marriage states would expand to 28 or 56%! (MAJORITY)

The population living in states that are pro-marriage would be about 209,000,000 or about 65%! (MAJORITY)

The number of U.S. House Reps would be 271 or 66%! (MAJORITY)  (Broken down by party it would be 159 Democrats and 130 Republicans)

The number of U.S. Senators would be 56 or 56%! (MAJORITY)  (Broken down by party it would be 38 Democrats and 16 Republicans)

The number of pro-marriage electoral votes would be 347! (You only need 270 to be president)

Dogglegangers

A government proposes a budget.  It could be federal, state, or local.  The question, could you tell if the government is a conservative or liberal/progressive government just by its budget?

That's the question I propose.  A budget has been handed down somewhere and based on the winners and losers in the budget, can you tell the ideology of the government?

Winners:
Defense
Medical Research
Infrastructure
Mining Companies

In Between:
High Income Earners
Private Sector

Losers:
Foreign Aid
Families
Senior Citizens
Education
Health
Public Service
Unemployed
Young People
University Students
Disabled
Low Income Earners
Public Broadcasting
Environment

If you're curious about the budget in question you visit here, here, here, and here.

Message to Milton Fagin: Stop Running

I don't know how many times someone has to run and lose for it to sink in: YOU'RE NOT GOING TO WIN.

Let's have a history lesson:

Care to take a guess how many times Fagin has run and lost?  With 2014 8 times.

1998: Loses in the general election for County Court 5; no primary opponent.
2000: Loses in the general election for 408th District Court; no primary opponent.
2002: Loses in the general election for 285th District Court; no primary opponent.
2004: Loses in the general election for 408th District Court; no primary opponent.
2006: Loses in the general election for 285th District Court; no primary opponent.
2010: Came in last in a 4 way primary for a district court seat.
2012: Primaried Judge Larry Noll and lost 60% - 40%.
2014: Comes in last in a 3 way primary for a district court seat.


Bexar County voters are just not that into you.

Updated: My Ballot for the Democratic Primary

So how did my ballot do?

Losses: 5
Wins: 7* (barring any changes with recounts)
Runoffs: 3

So 5 of my chosen candidates lost (Scherr, Fitzsimons, Canales, Petty, & Forbrich).  7 won (Davis, Brown, Green, Boyd, LaHood, Wolff, & Torres).  3 are going into runoffs (Bustamante, Scharf-Zeldes, Abundis-Esparza).
__________________________________________________________________________

For the contested races in my area, this is who will be getting my vote in the Democratic Primary:

U.S. Senate: Maxey Scherr
Governor: Wendy Davis
Agriculture Commissioner: Hugh Fitzsimons, III
Railroad Commissioner: Steve Brown
45th District Court: John Bustamante
150th District Court: Paul Canales
186th District Court: Mary Green
187th District Court: Stephanie Boyd
224th District Court: Michele Petty
D.A.: Nico LaHood
County Judge: Nelson Wolff
County Court #10: Tina Torres
Probate Court #1: Barbie Scharf-Zeldes
District Clerk: Elva Abundis-Esparza
County Clerk: Chris Forbrich

A Judge Who Isn't a Judge: Race for Bexar County Judge

Bexar County Judge

Primary Outlook: Nelson Favored

General Election Outlook: Nelson Favored

Bexar County Judge.  Through most of the 90s Republican Cyndi Krier held this post.  Since 2001, Democrat Nelson Wolff has been presiding on the Commissioners Court.

For such a powerful position, it's amazing how often it isn't contested, or at least actively challenged.  In 1992, Krier defeated Tommy Adkisson (D) to become County Judge.  When she ran for re-election in 1994 and 1998 she was unopposed.

When Wolff ran the first time in 2002 he faced a Republican and a Libertarian.  In 2006 and 2010 he was unopposed (2006) and only faced a Libertarian (2010).

Who's running?

Running for a full 4th term is incumbent Nelson Wolff.  A Democrat of the more moderate to conservative type, he's managed to avoid a primary challenge...until now.

Giving up his County Commissioner seat is Tommy Adkisson.  He's previously run and lost a race for County Judge and now resides as the Precinct 4 Commissioner.









Financial as of latest filing:
Adkisson: Contributions: $91,575; Expenditures: $90,920.54; CoH: $206,833.89
Wolff: Contributions: $159,600; Expenditures: $81,749.23; CoH: $214,622.99

Online:
Adkisson: Website, Facebook, Twitter
Wolff: Website, Facebook, Twitter, Attack Site

Overall this race is HOT, HOT, HOT:

1) Fireworks.  This is a race every political writer dreams of because it has fireworks.  If you've been to any forum featuring Wolff and Adkisson, you will not be disappointed.

2) Race.  It's a countywide race and it shows it.  This race makes the DA primary look like a race for a Wednesday Afternoon Fine Arts League.

3) Money.  Both candidates have enough money to really go after each other.  One glaring problem for Adkisson is his burn rate.  He's spending just as much as he's raising.

4) Endorsements.  Looking at the endorsements in this race, it starts to look like a David vs. Goliath.  Among Wolff's elected endorsers: Mayor Julian Castro, Congressman Joaquin Castro, Commissioners Paul Elizondo and Chico Rodriguez; State Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, State Reps Phil Cortez, Ruth Jones McClendon, Trey Martinez-Fischer, Jose Menendez, Justin Rodriguez, Mike Villarreal.

Among former electeds: Henry Cisneros, Phil Hardberger, Howard Peak, Art Hall, Chip Haass, Patti Radle, Roger Perez, Bonnie Conner.

Among nonelecteds (i.e., prestige and money): Henry Munoz, Frank Burney, Berto Guerra, Frank Herrera, Jane Macon, Walter Serna, Mikal Watts.

Based on the support Wolff should win this race.  Add to that, his better management of campaign money, and Tommy's troubles with emails, and Wolff should easily be the nominee for November.

Even Smart People say Stupid Things

Even very accomplished and smart people can say stupid things.  In this case, it comes in the form of incredulity.  The person behind it is Suzanne Hildebrand, who is definitely no slouch.  From her bio and the Express-News:

Suzanne is the founder of MADD in Texas, was appointed to serve on the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards & Education (TCLEOSE) by Governor Bill Clements, and currently serves on the Texas Council on Cardiovascular Disease and Stroke appointed by Governor Rick Perry. She also served on the Bexar County Jail Population Committee. While Suzanne’s main passion is stroke care and issues, her blog also addresses patient care, grief, political issues and items of general interest.

Hildebrand's incredulity comes about because of her shock that the Express-News endorsed Therese Huntzinger in the Democratic Primary for DA.

It's hard to take Hildebrand seriously in this case.  Why?  Her post starts out like this: I am an Independent, although I am philosophically more Republican than Democrat. Over the years, I have campaigned for candidates of both parties.

That's fine.  But taken together with how she describes the other Democratic DA candidate you start to get a different picture: Correctly, the Express-News found Nico LaHood, a drug dealing, gun toting felon to be unqualified. Don’t you honestly wonder how he ever became a lawyer?

On a personal note, I'm going to guess that LaHood, like many other people, managed to pick up the pieces of their life/lives and make something of themselves.  From the way Hildebrand describes LaHood he sounds like Tony Montana from Scarface.  I will admit to some incredulity at this moment.  Does Hildebrand believe that no one can learn from their past mistakes?  To me this is exactly what is wrong with the criminal justice system today.  We spout these feel good lines about rehabilitation, but never really believe that anyone arrested of certain crimes are capable of bettering their lives.  And thereby, these people are forever branded by some with scarlet letters for the rest of their lives.  But I digress...

It's what Hildebrand says about Huntzinger that causes some pause:

Even minor research, or Google search, reveals the truth about Huntzinger’s pursuit of “a witness-tampering indictment against a well-known criminal defense lawyer”. It was little more than a  political witch hunt launched by Huntzinger and her ally, an ultra-partisan politician and former San Antonio city councilman, who then served as foreman of the Grand Jury.

When asked about the sufficiency of the evidence in the case, Huntzinger said she had enough evidence to INDICT but that she would NEED TO OBTAIN MORE EVIDENCE TO CONVICT.

If Huntzinger’s attitude in that case doesn’t scare even a brave man or woman, it should. In fact, it sends cold shivers up and down my spine. Because of Huntzinger’s actions in that case, the Court appointed a Special Prosecutor to handle it. The Special Prosecutor promptly DISMISSED the case because of a TOTAL LACK OF EVIDENCE. This case should never have been brought and it proves Huntzinger to be uniquely UNQUALIFIED  to serve as District Attorney.

Huntzinger is a clear and present danger to every law-abiding citizen in Bexar County.

The Express-News should not have endorsed either of these unqualified candidates.

Why do I say pause, because after reading another account of the incident (cause I wasn't around for it), I have to wonder if Hildebrand has lied or if the truth is somewhere in between.  In addition, there are instances where a prosecutor does have enough evidence to indict someone, but to get the jury to that final conviction proves tough, if not impossible, without additional evidence.  From the sound of it, Ms. Hildebrand seems to argue that anyone indicted is automatically guilty.

But what really goes over the top is labeling Huntzinger a "clear and present danger."  Really?  Huntzinger is going to incite imminent lawless action in violation of the First Amendment?

Hildebrand titled her post Unbelievable Political Endorsement.  Obviously Ms. Hildebrand isn't supporting either of the Democratic DA candidates.  And going on that, plus that she has admitted to being more aligned with the Republican Party I have to assume she is supporting Susan Reed.  If the rumors about Reed are true, what I find unbelievable is a founder and former President of MADD supporting her reelection.

Republican Lite Gov Debate Snap Judgement

After watching the freak show that took place, I feel guilty for not having paid for a ticket.

For those able to keep your dinner down and managing to avoid a trip to the great white porcelain bowl, kudos.