Not in fitting with anything else on this site (for better or worse), but I'm too psyched about this show on Sunday, so I'm just spreading more Darkness karma out into the world ...

Rock On ... I can't think of a better way to spend Easter Sunday than rocking out with a bunch of British glam metalheads. I'm pretty sure the bounds of good taste (and a few copyright laws) prevent me from slapping up an MP3 or two of the band. But check out their site if the genre is your bag, and give a tune or two a listen. They do have some clips at their Audio/Video section. If you're pressed for time, opt for the video of "Growing On Me" ... it gets my highest recommendation. More on ClownCarBlog.

A few thoughts that have distilled into one over the last week ... I thoroughly suck at trying to edit myself on longer articles. Dunno if its a matter of patience or self-reflection that the task requires. Regardless, here's a few things I've sing missed in the downtime:

Iraq/Fallujah/Kos : The events in Fallujah have come the closest to approximating the Mogidishu tragedy from years past. One critical difference, however ... the seeming desire to cut and run hasn't quite bubbled up as prominently as it has in years past. Sure, Robert Byrd is clamoring for a quick exit. But when was the last time anyone outside of the Senate cared what he thought about anything? An odd sidenote to this is the insane rambling of one Markos Zuniga of DailyKOS. Now, I've long been of the opinion that DailyKOS has been devolving into the status of Democratic Underground for quite some time. I think its safe to say that this seals the deal. KOS's own "explanation" is apparently said to have appeased some, but I fail to see how it can. Far from being an apology or retraction, it represents a digging in the heels of his opinion that contractors who are killed in Iraq are undeserving of sympathy. Perhaps, rather than take out his frustrations that the death of private sector workers got "top billing" over the death of militants, that anger might be best turned against those who sought to make the grisly exhibitionist display of murder the spectacle that it was. It led the news because of its grotesqueness, make of that what you will. The killing was carried out so as to show Americans that they are in for a long haul and our best bet would be to leave. Instead, our best bet is to ensure that we are successful.

Without a doubt, the war in Iraq has changed since Bush wrongly declared "Mission Accomplished." But both sides ... the rose-colored outlook of the optimists who knew where the WMD were located and knew with complete certainty that we would be greeted as liberators - as well as the doom & gloom pessimists who painted pictures of tens of thousands of body bags headed back home ... both wrong. As is almost always the case, the truth lies inbetween. There is a dose of success and a dose of setback, both of which warrant a better statement of how we proceed from where we are to where we need to be. That's a task this President has been negligent at, ever since laying out the need for this war. With Kerry having been all over the map on the issue himself, its perhaps a good idea to schedule an early debate on Iraq and the war on terror itself as the primary focus.

Rwanda : Rwanda? How the hell did this one pop back up on the radar? Because we are at the 10-year anniversary of one of the worst genocides of our day. Sadly, this is one that Bill Clinton still doesn't get. Sadly, I missed the Frontline documentary on Rwanda that aired on 4/1. But some great recaps of the current state of Rwanda paint a confusing picture that doesn't exactly bode well. Exiled Hutus still lie in wait in the Congo, the court system meant to reconcile the Hutus with the Tutsis is having not quite that effect, and now Rwanda has outlawed all ethnicity. If only it were that easy.

Elk Grove Unified School District v. Michael A. Newdow : I'll admit to not being overly drawn to Supreme Court cases involving religious issues. But Leon Wieseltier has about the best take on the matter I've ever read.

Kerry v Bush : I can't believe we're already splitting hairs about who lost the last month or who won. Still a lot of ball to be played between now and November. If, as some believe, Kerry did slide back a bit after his vacation and surgery, then I suspect that being in a tie with an incumbant war president isn't such a bad landing. A few bad trends for Kerry that I spot, however ... RCP has Kerry losing Florida & Colorado, and he's down by two in Ohio. Tossup polling is seen in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. While FL & CO should be tougher states for Kerry to win, the improved prospects of Senate candidates in those states should put Kerry a little more in the ballpark, especially if you're looking for that "Gore plus one state" pickup.

More to come when time permits ....

Yes, I know I've been lackidasically hiatusing away here. But this one sure broke me out of my slumber ....

Roemer Being Coy In The U.S. Senate Race

Former Governor Buddy Roemer is staying below radar but is still actively considering a run for John Breaux's open U. S. Senate seat this fall. A recent non-partisan poll shows

Roemer in an initial strong position to make the runoff.

In the poll conducted by Vern Kennedy, Roemer runs second to the present leader, Congressman David Vitter. The numbers show:

1. Congressman David Vitter - 28
2. Former Governor Buddy Roemer - 19
3. Treasurer John Kennedy - 17
4. Congressman Chris John - 17
5. Rep. Arthur Morrell - 7

Roemer has frozen potential support in both parties that might have gone to one of the other major candidates. For example, Shaw CEO Jim Bernhardt has told both John Kennedy and Chris John that even though he is a staunch democrat; it would be hard for him not to support Roemer, who serves on the Shaw Board of Directors.

Roemer envisions the potential of being in a runoff with Vitter. That's assuming that Arthur Morrell is a serious candidate, and can raise enough money to build his identity, particularly in the African American community. If so, Roemer feels that Morrell's support will work against both Kennedy and John, and then he and Vitter can fight it out in the runoff. Roemer has always acted more as a Democrat than a Republican, so he would hope to end up with the lion's share of the black vote.

The polls show that Roemer, as well as Kennedy and John, all run a dead heat when facing Vitter one on one. Vitter polls well over 15% in the black community, so the conventional wisdom is that he can't hold this against any of the potential runoff candidates, including Roemer. Therefore, those analyzing the numbers conclude that anybody beats Vitter in the runoff. It's a question of getting there.

The polls show Roemer with high name recognition (91%), but also with a very solid negative of 30%. Vitter carries a 2 ½ to one positive-negative rating, John a 4 to 1 positive-negative rating, and Kennedy comes out the best with a 5 to 1 ratio.

This would be an interesting match up considering that Kennedy served as Executive Counsel to then Governor Roemer, and they have been friends for many years. Roemer feels he has time to decide with his name recognition, and a commitment of strong potential supporters that they will 'hold the line' for a while. He has set a date of the 1st of June to make a final decision. In the meantime, the other candidates are doing one thing and one thing alone in the coming weeks. Raising money. And it is unfortunate, but the winner will raise twice as much money out of state as he will in the state. That?s not in Louisiana?s interest, but that?s how the system works.

Likewise, even though I consider myself a staunch Democrat, I'd be all aboard for a Roemer candidacy. One thing I want to see first is that he's staying with the reform platform that he's been associated with since his initial run for Governor. If he paints a picture that puts him a bit closer to John McCain than to Rick Santorum, then just let me know where to send a contribution.

WAYBACK MACHINE:

Louisiana Overkill - ... Personally, although he's been out of the spotlight, I'd like to see Buddy Roemer make a return. Always liked that guy, even when he switched parties.

Regarding the latest Louisiana Governor's race. Roemer sat out, Blanco won. I still stand by the earlier statement regarding this Senate race.

Kerry Aides See McCain As Perfect Running Mate

There's hope for us yet ...

The union of a Democrat and a Republican "would make good on the president's promise to be a uniter, not a divider," said one Kerry aide, who like the others spoke on the condition of anonymity. Such a ticket could offer Americans the prospect of a reduction in the partisanship that has increasingly gripped Capitol Hill during the past decade, as well as a return to the national unity experienced in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack.

Above all, the aides hypothesize that by choosing McCain as a running mate, Kerry would energize the election, create a weeks-long buzz in the media, and, perhaps most importantly, attract the support of swing and independent voters from both parties. Surveys earlier this year showed that many of the people who supported Howard Dean's insurgent candidacy for the Democratic nomination were the same "McCainiacs" who helped McCain win the 2000 Republican primary in New Hampshire against Bush.

"The narrative fits the country right now," a Kerry aide said of a potential Kerry-McCain partnership, while not ruling out other potential tandems and asserting that the decision is Kerry's alone.

McCain has said he would not run with Kerry and has vowed to campaign for Bush, but last month he renewed speculation about a potential matchup when he was asked on ABC's "Good Morning America" whether he would consider running with Kerry. He replied, "Obviously, I would entertain it." Democratic Party rules do not outlaw -- nor specifically address -- nominating a candidate from another party, a Democratic National Committee spokeswoman said.

Author John Avlon has made a significant contribution to the ranks of literature covering the middle of ideological thought. I wish, however, I could say this is a competitive field. Despite a handful of books hitting the shelves of bookstores recently, few have given any coherent type of vision of what Arthur Schlesinger Jr. defined as the "vital center" in 1949. Yet with such a great collection of individual political histories that demonstrate a coherence and unity of mainstream political thought from the middle, Avlon overreaches on one critical element that many of the more recent writers committ to even more ... an attempt to define a centrist platform.

What is evident throughout the collection of histories that range in time from Theodore Roosevelt's Bull Moose campaign to the 2000 election between two moderates competing over the very middle itself is that the middle is movable.Where Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt saw the need to steer the government into a more protective role to serve as a counterweight to big business, more recent efforts have sought to balance competing demands between fiscal conservatism, a disdain for raising taxes, and a desire to do more with less at various government levels. Various moderate campaigns have sought to adapt elements of the opposing political party (Eisenhower) or to redefine the party of one's choosing, in an effort to reframe the debate (Moynihan, Clinton, Bush). Avlon even covers those who have rejected (or been rejected by) the two parties and run as pure independents.

The similarities in these histories is that each involves a case of actively defining one's political outlook so as to position ones self in the middle. Avlon does not seem to note this tendency enough, I think. The need for this is critical for centrist candidates. In order to escape the caricatured view that exists of the party one is running to represent, the value of defining one's candidacy and ideology is at a premium. Without such a definition, one is left to be defined by the letter next to their name and the inherent strength is denotes on election day.

While seemingly a shortcoming, it should not take away from the impressive collection of well-written histories. Of note ....

Gov. Buddy Roemer - Admittedly, seeing a chapter on this was a draw for me, personally. Stated bluntly, Buddy Roemer was (is?) my type of reformer. Roemer, of course, ran right in the belly of the beast, tackling corruption and cronyism in Louisiana state politics. His initial campaign was one to marvel at for the directness in which Roemer critiqued the state of Louisiana politics, replete with the image of Roemer sitting on a stool in a bare television setting, riffing his thoughts into the camera, noting "I love Louisiana, but I hate Louisiana politics." Taking on the dragon of Louisiana corruption himself, Edwin Edwards, Roemer had the ideal target. In noting that he would endorse anybody who was running against Edwards in a runoff (were Roemer not to make the cutoff - something he was in danger of as late as the very late debate in which he made the statement), Roemer ran as a pure reformer. In the end, he would lead the initial voting with a plurality, but not a majority. Instead of facing Roemer in a sure loss, Edwards opted out and ceded the race, handing the keys to the Governor's mansion to Roemer.

Somewhere along the way, reality set in as the status quo of Louisiana politics became a bit too overwhelming for Roemer to fully tackle. Likewise, unreality set in as Roemer endured a midlife crisis with a divorce and new age self-help guru advising Roemer right from the Governor's mansion. By the time Roemer stood for re-election, he would also switch from Democrat to Republican, taking leave of whatever Democratic support he had left, but gaining nothing from Louisiana Republicans who felt Roemer did nothing to communicate with them. Isolated, Roemer faced a squeeze in his next election. Edwin Edwards to the left, and David Duke to the right. With the extremes energized, it would be those two who faced off in a runoff ... offing Roemer in the process.

The tale is inconclusive in how it tells a tale of a successful centrist campaign. Roemer's first win statewide was not with a majority (although Avlon leaves out Roemer's total, vague memory pegs it around 30%). His administration was a series of hits and misses, as the very reform that Roemer sought made enemies within the business community. This would lead to one impassioned opponent to spend a million or so dollars buying every remaining open slot of TV ad time late in the second campaign to prevent Roemer from hitting the airwaves in order to pull into the runoff. He would end up trailing Duke 30% to 26.9% and having to laboriously note that he advocated a vote for Edwards, while not endorsing him personally.

Pres. Bill Clinton - There's not a lot unknown on Clinton's 1992 campaign that ended up leading Democrats out of the wildnerness. Avlon begins with a retelling of Clinton's initial campaign foray at the DLC's Cleveland convention, noting "It is difficult to remember how revolutionary those words sounded" in describing Clinton's manifesto of responsibility, opportunity and community. The sad thing is, there seems to be more than a few willing to forget how effective the message was in rebuilding the Democratic party to the status today's 50-50 electorate. Once more, the candidate defines himself aggressively, assertively, and with certainty. Being a moderate need not mean being unsure of oneself. While most candidates (yes, even Bush) will leave just enough wiggle room in their comments, and Clinton certainly seemed to raise this to an artform, I emphasize the primary message of the campaign in this instance (and likely most others, too). Candidates of all striped will leave their foot in their mouth or trip over their tongue in responding to a question or offering an unscripted response. While not discounting the importance of those comments, how one defines themself at the fundamental point of giving both the critique of the other side and stating one's own outlook is viewed separately in noting that centrists need not merely hide behind saying "me too" in order to fit into a 50%+1 model of winning elections.

Gov. Earl Warren - An interesting tale, to say the least. Warren won the primary for both parties in his campaign for Governor of California. Warren's brand of centrism seems almost as if to model a pseudo-Unitarian "all of the above" approach to politics in that he was primarily a Republican, but adapted to the New Deal era and had benefit of running against far left candidates in the Democratic primary while holding onto just enough Republican support despite notable opposition to his politics. While I think Warren's brand of centrism is one that may not apply to today as well as many other candidate histories in the book, it is at least an historical curiosity worth reading.

Sen. Patrick Moynihan - Where the Roemer chapter had my interest perked to full attention, this one closed the sale for me. While Roemer's tale is one that does not leave a happy ending, Moynihan at least offers success in the political realm ... and in the rocky terrain of New York politics at that. The chapter covers his initial campaign against Bella Abzug in 1976 as its focal point. From the Democratic side, this is a must-read chapter. Sadly, Moynihan's critique of Abzug reads all to much like the basis of a good critique that modern Democrats should heed for challenges to the energized (and often loony) left emerging in our own ranks.

As far back as 1967, in a speech that would be delivered a mere 2 months before my own birth (coincidence?), Moynihan would offer a speech to the board of Americans for Democratic Action in which he offers the following points, as offered by Avlon:

1. Liberals must see more clearly that their essential interest is in the stability of the social order; and that, given the present threats to that stability, they must seek out and make much more effective alliances with political Conservatives who share their interest and recognize that unyielding rigidity is just as great a threat to continuity of the social order as an anarchic desire for change.

2. Liberals must divest themselves of the notion that the nation - and especially the cities of the nation - can be run from agencies in Washington.

3. Liberals must somehow overcome the curious condescension that takes the form of defending and explaining away anything, however outrageous, which Negroes, individually or collectively might do.

While the speech's context was within the social unrest at teh time, the fundamental aspects made then stand as true today. Moynihan's 1976 campaign, as he seemed to note ... was to save liberalism from its excesses. Abzug, in turn, seemed intent to make the campaign turn on the issue of which candidate was the "real" Democrat. In words that clearly sum up my own belief, Avlon quotes Moynihan in a campaign speech, railing against hijackers of liberalism:

"Much lip service is given by persons of this poltical persuasion to teh idea of improving and refomring things, but in practice, more often then not, they show no interest in the kind of incremental improvement taht the traditional liberalim of the Democratic party has always sought and always fought for."

My kingdom for more candidates who steal that quote from Moynihan.

Govs. Weicker (CT), Ventura (MN), King (ME) - This tale of three independent candidates may give some ray of hope for other candidates running as independents. But look more closely, and any ray of hope will seem more like a train light headed their way. Each of these three successful candidates had more than a capital "I' next to their name when election day rolled around. Lowell Weicker had years of service as a Senator, elected statewide until being offed by yet another of my faves: Joe Lieberman. Jesse Ventura, as many might have heard, had some sort of quasi-sports related career going before trading that for a job as small town mayor and Reform candidate for Governor. Angus King was a popular radio talk show host in Maine before figuring out what to do after his time with the failed Paul Tsongas campaign had come to an end. In short, each of the three had some sort of name recognition to trade on that aided their candidacy. Each is a great story in its own right, but each should offer little hope for future independent candidates without such similar currency.

As stated, the histories are the strong point for this book. Avlon attempts to define a course for moderate politicians: pro-choice, pro-environment, reasonable gun control, school prayer, campaign finance reform, tax simplification, bilingual education reform, and tort reform. Avlon concludes that an "overdue realignment" is in order, just waiting to happen. I'll disagree. No such realignment need happen where agreement already exists. When the two parties fail to encompass many of the areas Avlon notes, moderate voters are often left to make false choices (anyone here in Houston recall the 2001 mayoral runoff election?). When a candidate defines himself in the realm of this middle ground, the alignment is already in place (anyone here in Houston recall the 2003 mayoral runoff election?) - ripe for the taking. It is up to the candidate to best define himself within this mainstream agenda, first by keeping in mind that the salient issues that define this group of voters changes and the risk of missing the definition is one that is easy to make (personally, I think Avlon misses the point with bilingual education ... is this REALLY an issue that a large number of people are so concerned with?). Secondly, it is up to the candidate to state this case, often without party support, often running against intraparty challenges that attack the legitimacy of this agenda within the party context, and and often without the built-in constituencies of support that frequently go along with traditional party candidates. To define the vital center, one must put it into the context of their party (see "Moynihan, Senator Daniel Patrick") and challenge the status quo within the rank and file (see "Clinton, President William Jefferson" and "Bush, President George W."). How that message is delivered and received are separate concerns worth addressing, but I'll leave that for another day & time

A few brief takes since I've been busy with putting some book reviews and longer articles together ...

Strayhorn rips into governor

Texas Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn on Friday lambasted Gov. Rick Perry's proposal to cap tax increases for property owners, saying it was like "rearranging the chairs on the Titanic."

"And the Titanic's problems aren't going away," Strayhorn said during a lunch gathering of civic and business leaders in Dallas.

God bless that crazy granny. For a little more Perry madness, Rick Casey has a great writeup on his latest pick for State Education superintendent that is simply devastating and continues to show this Gov seemingly finding new and inventive ways to half-ass his way through anything.

With the red meat main course out of the way now ... Gregland is a bit occupied. Home sick today, so I'm catching up on reading when possible.

Yesterday was eventful enough with a movie, a hockey game, and a concert. All have their highlights, not the least of which was sharing a bit of company with two hot blondes at the hockey game. Look for the entertainment bits to show up on ClownCarBlog soon. Longer think-peices will hit this site around the same time. Brace yourselves.

Although, seriously ... can I possibly top Kevin's writeups on the city's pension mess?

First things first ... Mo-Joe Goes to State!!!!

Given that political conventions can only be best summed up as a combined form of heaven and hell, anyone writing about the subject must cover a great amount of good and bad. So despite spending 8 hours with a lot of sitting, a lot of listening, and a lot of nothing, let me start with neither the good nor the bad, but the humorous.

I stroll into Robert E. Lee High School knowing merely a few things to expect. I'm on the Resolutions committee, so I look forward to the ferocious debate of every issue under the sun. I also know that I'm sticking to my guns as a Lieberman delegate just out of principle and if that means I miss the state convention, then so be it.

Given my moderate bonafides, I walk in and am greeted by the convention chair and promptly asked to conduct a workshop on liberal media. I note that its a bit more red meat than my diet normally allows for, but this sways nobody. I spend an inordinate amount of time drawing up a list of sites to pass on and my preparation for organizing a 30-40 minute group session is severely lacking.

In the midst of the first group session, there I am opining on a litany of topics concerning liberal media sources, supposedly an expert ... and then Byron Barclay arrives from the Nominations Committee to inform me that I can't go to state as a Lieberman delegate. The irony, I'm sure, struck only me the most. It would later turn out that after reviewing the rules, I will be taking MoJoe to state since I was voted out of my precinct as a Lieberman delegate by the landslide margin of one vote to zero. Hurray for democracy.

OK, so the bad? ... David van Os needs to never run for office again. He was our keynote speaker and admittedly, has a tough role as both a statewide candidate, the state party's top ticket candidate (which isn't saying a lot in Presidential years for Texas ... there's basically the Supreme Court & Railroad Commish to battle over). Anyways, David has to give a somewhat big picture speech as the quasi-standard bearer, plus this is a keynote event, so the speech might want to be about more than how Democrats would govern the Supreme Court were they given the keys to justice once again. After hearing David's speech, I still have no clue how Democrats would conduct themselves as Supreme Court justices. That's a shame. I do know, however, where our Supreme Court candidate stands on Iraq. And yet, instead of pondering WMD, about all I'm left to think of David's speech is BFD. We need to do better.

There's more bad, and a lot of mediocre, but let me get to a few good things to note just to keep this a bit balanced. In arriving early, I peruse the program, look for a few familiar names to see which ones might show up, and notice two right off the bat ... Byron Barclay listed as a sponsor and his wife Rhonda showing up on a few committees. I run into both and learn that Byron has been a one-man PR machine for this very site. If you see me washing his car at some point, you'll know why. Best quality time had to be in the all-too-brief time I spent with Byron, Rhonda & acquaintances at Pappasito's after the convention. Hard to top having a lovely woman buy me a beer, but the rest of the time was pretty entertaining as well.

Back to everything inbetween ... Chris Bell showed up fairly early, and I'm semi-sweating if he's read a recent post-mortem on his candidacy where I'd written a few critical notes of him. I'll amend them here ... and without contradicting myself, I think. Chris gave a pretty damn good speech to the group, but the medium is notably different than the smaller groups I'd normally seen him in. And to be fair, Chris is perhaps the single best television candidate that Texas Dems can put forth. That may mean he makes a better statewide candidate than a Congressional candidate (or Mayoral candidate). His problem in small groups is simply that he isn't engaging. I've dealt with him one-on-one, and know him to be as engaging as he wants to be, witty, and everything else you could ask for in a candidate. In front of a few hundred people from a stage setting, he does a pretty good job, getting a very good reaction from the partisans. And I've got no doubts that in media settings, with TV or radio, his skills in those mediums as a professional will help him immensely. But somewhere between crowds of one and crowds of 250, there's some work yet to be done. Not sure how critical that will be as a statewide candidate ... you've still got to host fundraisers with groups in that headcount range, so I suspect he'll need to address it if he seriously wants to pick up some enthusiasm from peole he meets.

We had the normal plethora of candidates speaking ... that's what these things are for, after all. Al Edwards, Scott Hochberg, and Rodney Ellis stood out as impressive. John Martinez (CD07) did not. I excused myself for procuring a slice of pizza while Al Green spoke. I like to think I chose wisely. Reginald McKamie still strikes me as intriguing if for no other reason that you've got to think his energy is contagious. If the groundwork he's putting out through Harris County is a reflection of that, then he could push the Democratic percentage up another point or two (yeah, I'd like more ... but color me sceptical that any Dem wins countywide this time).

The workshop I had to conduct was pretty good when all was said and done. I was seriously hoping that I'd end up giving it to a bunch of people I didn't know so I'd have the freedom to screw up with my dignity intact. No dice, as a trio of acquaintences from Precinct 256 show up. They didn't heckle me, so I like to think that survival is a moral victory of sorts. One of the ladies questioned my inclusion of The New Republic as falling within the center-left realm of media. It was nice to see a little thought like that going on. In fairness, I did give a few mentions of the harder left sites, incuding some that I'm not overly fond of (like DailyKOS). About the best advice I think I managed to pass on is to just check the links here at this lil ol site, as well as on Charles Kuffner's. Charles has a more exhaustive blog listing, and a few other links that I skip over. Mine is a bit of a highlighted list, admittedly with a few ommissions that I fail to read often enough for a variety of reasons (not all of which are due to not liking them). BurntOrangeReport.com also got a highlighted plug for their statewide coverage. From the links on all of the above, just carve an hour or two out of the day and find sites that you like to read for whatever reason, bookmark them, and pass on the best work to your Republican friends to irritate the holy hell out of them. One thing worth plugging in addition ... Kevin Whited's site. He's no Dem, but he's also not the most vitriolic freeper in the world. And even if you don't like the current events takes of his, the sports and music posts are quality stuff. He's the reigning champ on Houston Press' award for Best local blogger. If the Houston Press can give him props, then so can anyone else, I think. Oh, the one downside of doing the workshop ... it meant I missed out on the Resolutions committee fun. Apparently, the standard fare debate over Israel once more rose its ugly head and led to the most contentious debate during the floor votes.

The second session I had for the workshop was a smaller group, but started off with a pretty good question that again showed some pretty good thought put into the topic. A lady wanted to know if the Chronicle was conservative or liberal. My answer (debatable, I'm sure) ... neither. They reflect the downtown business establishment now as they did when they were an independent newspaper. That means their business coverage is absolutely abyssmal (name one critical Enron article pre-implosion), the national coverage is predominately newswire work. The local and state coverage is insanely chummy, so as to be not the least bit revealing. I recall when one of the mayoral candidates (can't remember if it was Turner, Berry, or Sanchez ... I think Berry), I exchange a few emails on outrage over some rather substantial historical notes left out (part of the confusion ... all of the candidates have their baggage). I'm greeted with a response of something like "Oh, John Williams can't write anything negative on anybody." I was also offered a $50 bet on one of the later-to-announce candidates getting same treatment when his announcement was official. I declined to take the bet due to the fact that I felt my challenger's information was better than mine. Neither liberals, conservatives, or even moderates have much to like about the Chronicle ... it just sucks.

All that said, the event seemed to go as well as one could realistically expect. By the end of the day, the bunting I'd been enlisted to put up was starting to fall off, so I kept praying we'd end before everything just fell apart. We managed to accomplish that. I'd later learn that in the midst of all the "fun" of voting on resolutions from the convention floor, that I was being used as an opinion leader of sorts when a few others weren't sure where they stood and used my voting as the basis of their own decision (these things tend to be insanely mind-numbing after about the 1st resolution ... kudos to Ella Tyler for enduring the task of reading them). Its ironic because in moving over from my island as the lone delegate in Precinct 430, I hang out with the better organized neighboring precinct of 256, chit chat a bit, and catch all forms of hell for the times I end up voting opposite the ladies I'm conversing with. Nothing keeps things livelier in conversation than excusing yourself to negate one of the two votes your acquaintances just cast. I'm sure I can expect to catch several forms of hell at the next meeting (or two, or three, or ...) of Sharpstown Democrats.

Final kudos to Bert Anson, the convention chair. I might have been inclined to hold him in disdain for enlisting me to conduct a workshop on liberal media, but his job is thankless enough for this event.

After the convention, I headed out to the Aeros game, the good guys won. Today is a movie, another hockey game, and a concert afterwards. Apologies to anyone I don't get in touch with that I need to. Damn busiest weekend I've ever had.

Tomorrow is Senate District Conventions throughout the state, so I'm busy all day with that, and a host of other activities. I'll be taking part in the SD17 Convention as a Lieberman delegate and I'll also be on the Resolutions Committee. How much fun can one person have?

Slow blogging on tap, but look for massive updates to follow all the carnage, possibly with some updates on Sharpstown Democrats if any of us can work that into the convo during some downtime ...

MoJoe Lives On!

DeLay To Step Down?

Key word here is "temporarily," however. Also, this only covers his leadership spot, not his Congressional seat. You just know THAT would be too good to be true.

Texas can be leaner without being meaner

This is a bit dated, but still worth passing on.

At the end of the last regular legislative session, decisions were made that left Texas dead last among states in the percentage of children who have health insurance.

And new numbers show that 107,000 children have been dropped from the Children's Health Insurance Program since the beginning of this fiscal year. That's a 21 percent drop in five months.

We have reduced reimbursement rates to doctors, hospitals and nursing homes, and we have narrowed eligibility for health care for children from low-income families.

Moreover, due to state budget cuts, Texas is leaving an estimated $1.6 billion on the table in federal funds for Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program.

? 107,000 children dropped off the insurance rolls since September.

? $1.6 billion left on the table.

That's unconscionable.

You don't make those reductions without a human cost. Those children simply don't disappear. They turn up in local emergency rooms and trauma centers. We have taken a challenge for the state and created a crisis for the cities.

Here's my bottom line: I would rather spend $72 a month insuring a child and $500 immunizing a child than spend $6,700 hospitalizing that child.

...

This administration also is ignoring a remedy available now to fix some of the problems it has created.

I estimate $469.3 million could be distributed, and another $113 million could be appropriated, if, and when, the governor calls a special session.

That's almost $583 million to restore some severe cuts in heath care, to restore all mental health services for children and to restore all Medicaid cuts for mental health services.

Again, here's my bottom line: I would rather spend $360 for a troubled Texan to receive a month's worth of mental health services than spend $1,140 for that troubled Texan to spend a month in county jail.

I am not advocating big-government solutions to intractable problems. Government can't be all things to all people. The failures of the past have demonstrated that conclusively.

We must be leaner. We must not be meaner.

But no state can be great if it casts aside its weakest members. No state can ignore the cries of the frailest voices among its citizens. No Texan in need should be consigned to the dustbin of convenience and political expediency.

I've said it once, I'll say it again ... there is but one effective critic of Rick Perry these days that is able to cut him off at the knees on issues of credibibility on a range of issues, and that is none other than Carole Keeton Strayhorn. Others try, and some may offer even better, more detailed critiques. But none of them have won statewide office.

While Kay Bailey continues to be coy about her future, there's some merit to Kuff's suggestion that, at age 60, Kay might be just as content to hang it up and go somewhere where there's a fortune to be made. She's been an effective Senator, even if I haven't agreed with her an inordinate amount. The tendency in Texas (among other states as well) has been to have one ideological Senator and one who gets stuff done. That was definitely the case with Bentsen & Gramm. It occassionally looks that way now with Kay being the grunt worker while Cornyn pushes for a plethora of constitutional amendments needed to ensure the sanctity of whatever is the rage these days.

With that in mind, let's engage in a little parlor game, shall we? I know, the 2004 elections aren't even over, but I'm gonna lob a few grenades for 2006 already. Humor me as we consider a few candidates from the D side of the aisle ...

US Senator A little will depend on where Rick Perry runs in '06. There is no shortage of Dems licking their chops at the weakest fish in the sea. If Perry gets a free ride in the GOP primary for either this race or for reelection as Gov, it could be a mixed blessing as any Dem will need some dough to run in areas where ground needs to be made up (NE & SE Texas, rural regions, etc). If Perry is here, then I suspect the short list of potentials would include US Rep. John Turner, Ken Bentsen, & Ron Kirk. If Perry is out, look for Turner to set his sites on the Gov race, with the other two to armwrestle for who gets this race and who gets a consolation race. State Party chair Charles Soechting will have his hands full if he is needed to sort out this race. Bentsen wants to be Senator. That's clear. Kirk gave it a good go last time and ran amazingly well, with his vote above that of Sanchez in most/all areas & just below the leaders of the Dem board: John Sharp and Margaret Mirabel. Look for whichever candidate is raising their profile financially to have the edge in this race. One wildcard here ... Chris Bell. Personally, I'd put him down as a better candidate for AG, but if this race thins out, Bell might not mind swooping in. Personally, I'd love to see Kirk make another go of it.

Governor I've got a short list here, with two names. Depending on how the elections go this year, I can make it four. The two are Jim Turner & Carole Keeton Strayhorn. Granted, the Strayhorn switch scenario seems to have cooled off somewhat. Although she's still worth a good quote here and there knocking Perry, the cleavage seen thus far appears to be among a few GOP financial backers. Will they back her if she bolts? Dunno. I think there's still a way for her to make the switch and make it magnificently, but the clock is ticking on this one. If two Congressional races go poorly for Dems, the opening for conservative Dems on the ballot is pretty full. Reason being, the other two names on the list are Charlie Stenholm and Martin Frost. Nary an ultralib among this bunch, to be quite frank. Would Ralph Yarborough spin in his grave?

Lt. Gov. Go back to those extra two names of Frost & Stenholm ... I think they can sort out among themselves which one might be more interested in this gig. Either of them might be better at this job then as Gov anyway. Add Chet Edwards to the mix on this as well. He nearly ran for this office in 1990 anyway.

Attorney General Kirk Abbott ran a pretty tough race and did as well as anyone could have in 2002. My hunch is that a rematch serves to bolster the Abbott campaign with a bitter taste left from the harshness of 2002. Chris Bell is a fresh face for this race. Linda Yanez & Margaret Mirabel could also be two great candidates in that both did well in their races for Supreme Court in '02. Mirabel may yet be the first Dem to win statewide if she plays her cards right (and nobody else does the same). Preference: Mirabel.

Comptroller If Strayhorn stays in the GOP field on this one, I say either leave it alone or do the next best thing: run Marty Akins for the job again. Never heard of Akins? Yeah, neither have any other Texas voters. If Strayhorn does bolt, or even if she just moves on, then we've got a readymade candidate for this one: Paul Hobby. If Hobby opts to not run, then get back to me after massive bouts of swearing.

Ag. Commish Although Charlie Stenholm might seem picture perfect for this, I suspect the job would be a bit of a step down for him, so I'm not sure if he's interested. Susan Combs is going to be tough to beat. The best hope is that she moves up. If so, then talk to Stenholm. Otherwise, find a State Sen. or State Rep. with some cred on Ag issues.

Chief Justice, Supreme Court - Margaret Mirabel. She got as close to actually winning a race last time as any other partisan. May as well give it a go for the top job and slay the dragon that is Tom Phillips. Lacking that, work down the roster to Yanez, David van Os, and others.

The Lesser Statewide Races: check back with me as any intriguing names pop up.

State Sen. 15 - Anybody but John Whitmire.

State Sen. 17 - When Nick Lampson loses (I wish I could be optmistic here, folks) I'd like to see him consider this one. The motive is simple ... this is Tom DeLay's State Senate district (mine too). Lampson might have some leftover money, he's got a lot of support in the Gaveston-area part of this district, the vote in Harris county can be rather independent, and as long as the Ft. Bend vote doesn't swing too far to the GOP, its winnable. The statewide index on this one is 61-39 GOP. Short of that, Chris Bell's name pops up for consideration.

Miller slams Kerry, renews offer to Bush

In an interview near the Senate floor last week, Miller said he is willing to help Bush ?because I believe in him. ? I believe in the direction he?s taking this country. I think he?s a principled and determined leader, and that?s what we need right now.?

Miller had much harsher words for his Senate colleague, who is preparing to challenge Bush in November. ?The fact that he has this very liberal voting record will work negatively,? he said. Miller faulted Kerry for ?trying to have it both ways on so many issues.?

I guess Zell Miller was missing his 15 minutes of fame, hence his need to go back on the offensive and remind everyone that he's endorsing George Bush. Miller, technically a Democrat, has claimed that his party choice is a birthright, hence his denial to switch parties. Curious ... because I was born a lot of things, but ideological convictions were not among them. Those develop over time and experience. Were Miller to state that he views his convictions as his basis of party choice, then fine. But, to date, that's not been the case.

The article goes on to mention that Miller had not always been so dismissive of John Kerry. In fact, still up on Miller's site is the speech he gave introducing John Kerry to his fellow Georgians:

My job tonight is an easy one: to present to you one of this nation's authentic heroes, one of this party's best-known and greatest leaders ? and a good friend.

He was once a lieutenant governor ? but he didn't stay in that office 16 years, like someone else I know. It just took two years before the people of Massachusetts moved him into the United States Senate in 1984.

In his 16 years in the Senate, John Kerry has fought against government waste and worked hard to bring some accountability to Washington.

Early in his Senate career in 1986, John signed on to the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Bill, and he fought for balanced budgets before it was considered politically correct for Democrats to do so.

Speaking of "having it both ways" ...

Getting Tough with Progressive Constituencies

There's a great series of current articles up on The Gadflyer (quickly emerging as a leading light community blog, IMO). In this particular case, Amy Sullivan takes aim at the need for Democrats to show the occassional bout of tough love with constituencies that sometimes end up doing more harm then good, not just for the party's sake, but often for their own, as well. Note ...

As in any dysfunctional relationship, political constituencies test the strength of candidates' devotion, making them earn love through public displays of affection, expensive candlelit dinners, and professed love for ethanol subsidies. It's a relationship built on distrust, however, because with such a closely divided electorate, issue groups know that once the primaries are over, their chosen ones will need to move to the middle to attract swing voters. So they demand signs of commitment early, putting candidates in the difficult position of either remaining wedded to an extreme stance or becoming vulnerable to the charge of "flip-flopping."

It's time for this to stop. It has never been a particularly mature way of conducting political business, but with the stakes so high and the margin for error so slim, candidates need to learn how to stand up for themselves and progressive constituencies need to keep the larger picture in mind as well as their specific individual interests.

[snip]

Labor Unions ...
Our economic system is transforming with lightning speed. Even the Clinton-era predictions about the development of a new information economy are now dated, as jobs for which former manufacturing employees once attended ITT schools to obtain are now being outsourced to countries like India. We don't yet know what the solutions will be. But we know that focusing on the economy of the past won't help anyone.

[snip]

Teachers Unions
My heart is normally with the teachers unions, but their unwavering opposition to vouchers has had the unfortunate effect of denying them the ability to make sure that voucher programs ? which continue to spread, despite their objections ? serve the best interests of America's students. For all the talk of "accountability" that accompanied passage of the No Child Left Behind law, private schools are largely exempt from accountability standards, even when students attend them with the aid of public dollars in the form of vouchers. Accountability for schools that participate in voucher programs should be an issue that the teachers unions can get behind, but they can't legitimately enter into that debate until they set aside their flat-out, no-way no-how, over-our-dead-turtle-tanks resistance to voucher programs.

[snip]

The Black Community
The black community is going through a political identity crisis right now. After the dramatic and tangible successes of the civil rights era and the visible battles over busing policies, black politics over the past few decades has focused on issues of much more subtle distinction. Are they race issues? Or are they really class issues? It's difficult to pinpoint whether a particular politician has voted the "correct" way. So in too many cases, politicians have had to seek endorsements by instead courting black leaders, loudly proclaiming themselves "a friend of the black community," and opening themselves up to public humiliation if they fail to do either one aggressively enough.

[snip]

Choice Groups
Democrats are not going to ? nor should they ? adopt a pro-life platform. But they would do well to adopt rhetoric that is less stridently pro-abortion. And choice groups would do well to remember that while it is their job to stake out idealistic positions, they need to be patient and tolerant with politicians who recognize the gray areas of this difficult issue, sometimes voting for sensible measures such as parental notification laws.

I cannot find enough words of high praise for this woman as of yet. I'll let you know when the English language catches up. She's also got a great response on her Jesus Freakishness that an emailer takes to task.

The remainder of the "Getting Tough" series on the site is worth additional commentary. I'll try to get to that tonight.

Penders says he'll run to glory at UH

The run & shoot returns to Houston collegiate athletics, just this time in basketball. I've said it on numerous occassions as the hiring of the former UT basketball coach has seemed inevitable, I'm not crazy about Penders, but we could do a lot worse, and his style of play is indeed fun to watch. With that, I'm not sure how to label the sense of curiosity I have about next season. Is it morbid curiosity? ... is it anxious curiosity? I just don't know. But like spring training for baseball, this hiring at least brings a sense of excitement about next season and makes it worth getting ready for. The first game against Texas oughtta be a doozie. Regardless of roster strength, I think a win by the Coogs is as certain as it was when Clyde's team beat UT to start his run as coach. Some games just mean so much, ya know.

Still, its a bit odd to see Penders in a red tie and think of him as one of my own ... at least, just yet.

Beach,Bell in statewide race, Green gets help, Wilson to lobby?

A little confirmation that Congressman Chris Bell is considering a statewide run in '06, courtesy of George Strong. My hunch is that Attorney General would be a decent fit. My earlier notes about the quality of Bell as a campaigner should be addressed if he intends to ... I swear I don't make this stuff up, but if you think you're going to run a tough race, likely against the incumbant, one has to run hard and aggressively. If the loss to Green serves as a wakeup call on that front, then great.

Strong also amends my suspicion that the Allen-Wilson race had such a heavy impact on the Green-Bell race by noting the 15 candidate field for District Constable 7 that went on in a broader area than the 131st. Duly noted.

The wink and nod about Ron Wilson running elsewhere in 2006, though ... that's curious. A challenge to Al Green, perhaps? I'd put that in the "doubtful" category. A primary challenge to Chris Bell for AG ... even if only out of spite? I can think of odder scenarios. Challenging Rodney Ellis in '06? Hmmmm.

In other news, Kevin earns his keep in the blogosphere by reminding us why he's been voted Houston's best blogger. For those not catching all the drips and drabs of the city pension fund mess that hit the newswires, this is mandatory reading.

While the peice is a touch heavy on the Brown-bashing (anyone who's lived in Houston will know, in no shortage of detail, Brown's shortcomings), Brown nevertheless serves up ample ammo to head back his way. And worth echoing, the problem did not just magically happen overnight, nor did it result from Prop. 15.

Stay tuned for Part 2 (I just love two-parters, I'm surprised I've not yet attempted one of my own), where Kevin takes a look forward on the whole sordid mess. Just a wild guess, but I suspect voting for the opt-out in May is gonna be part of it.

Is this a state of acceptance?

I'll admit, when the name of Tom Penders popped up for the first time as a potential head coach at UH basketball, I thought it had to be a joke. The University of Houston is, after all, the anti-University of Texas (right down to the hand sign). That said, I always enjoyed Penders' teams at UT and George Washington. Not a shortage of running and gunning, typically with decent defense to boot.

But still ... could we not find a version of this that doesn't have burnt orange luggage???

TAG-ALONG: Kevin is "happy enough" with Penders as coach. So make it two for this caucus.

Bull Run

Simply stated, this is quality reading & its evident to see how and why New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer is the rising star that he is. There are a few choices of words I'd prefer to edit, but the central theme is one that I maintain as a central element of my own partisan faith.

The shame of it all is that this is behind TNR's subscriber firewall. If you get to a bookstore and see the occassional two-week old copy of The New Republic, however ... snag this one (its the cover story from the issue of 3/22).

One snippet to tease with:

Government has been effective and well-received when it has acted to preserve (or restore) confidence in the fairness of the market itself. At a basic level, for a market to be truly free and efficient and have the full confidence of its participants, two things are required: integrity and transparency.

Integrity, in this context, is the idea that actors in the marketplace are what they purport to be: that those who claim to offer independent advice and analysis are not tainted by conflicts of interest; that those who are entrusted with protecting shareholders do so, rather than enriching themselves at shareholders' expenses; and that those who, by virtue of their wealth, power, or access, may be positioned to violate the rules do not. In a system where there is not, and cannot be, a cop on every metaphorical street corner, we rely on this integrity to give us confidence that the system is fair and genuinely competitive.

Just as actors must be what they claim to be, information in a free market must be accurate and truthful, freely flowing, disseminated in a timely way, and available to all. Transparency--implemented through disclosure requirements, institutional barriers to abuse, or widely accepted rules of conduct--is what makes meaningful choice possible. And choice by all actors in a rational market--be they investors or consumers, CEOs or shopkeepers--is what creates the competitive pressures that make the market more efficient and create wealth for us all.

Government is the institution best-suited to protect against corruption and abuse and to ensure that the economic playing field is level. But, in the 1990s, Wall Street experienced what can only be described as the "perfect storm" of government failure. It began with the consolidation of the financial-services sector--permitted by the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, a Depression-era statute requiring that commercial and investment banking be separated. The result was the formation of vast full-service enterprises that brought together many potentially conflicting lines of business, including commercial banking, investment banking, stock analysis, and retail brokerage. At the same time, we democratized the marketplace by (wisely) encouraging the American public at large to invest in the capital markets. The interface between mega-institutions and small investors was fraught with risk--risk met by a regulatory void. Indeed, Harvey Pitt, the first Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) chair appointed by Bush, is a former industry lobbyist who promised the financial sector a "kinder, gentler SEC," an approach that led to a total breakdown in market enforcement. From Tyco to Enron to mutual funds to analyst compensation, the SEC simply was not attentive to the structural failures that were widely known to industry insiders.

With protections against conflicts of interest severely hobbled, integrity and transparency were soon sacrificed. As a result, research analysts whose compensation and career prospects depended upon the fortunes of their investment-banking partners pushed information about companies that was not just "imperfect," but false. In one infamous example, Merrill Lynch analyst Henry Blodget simultaneously helped pitch banking business to InfoSpace, a Web search company, and hyped the stock to investors, all the while telling his co-workers that the stock was a "piece of junk." In relying on corrupted advice like this, investors invested, corporate executives and investment bankers got rich, and companies that should have been market losers actually "succeeded."

But that success, which took the form of skyrocketing stock prices, options values, and compensation packages for corporate executives, was necessarily short-lived. The market had its revenge, as artificially pumped-up companies were unable to compete over the long term. Their business models failed and their stock prices plummeted. And yet abuses continued. Despite WorldCom's sinking fortunes, Citigroup analyst Jack Grubman kept promoting the stock, all the while receiving compensation that resulted from WorldCom's banking business with Citigroup. But, ultimately, he couldn't keep reality from catching up to WorldCom: Its share price dropped from $60 to 20 cents, wiping out $100 billion in market value.

The real victims were the companies' employees, the investing public, and the market itself. Not only had the public confidence essential to market performance been squandered, but the companies into which huge amounts of capital had been funneled were, from a long-term perspective, the wrong ones. Inefficient, unsound, and simply undeserving, these businesses failed to create meaningful jobs, growth, or lasting wealth. Couple these structural failures with the impact of other corporate scandals--such as Enron, Tyco, and Adelphia--and the result was grim. When the bubble burst in the late '90s, and the truth about overhyped companies came to light, stunned investors experienced the biggest drop in the S&P; Index since the 1987 market crash--a drop with profound ripple effects throughout the national economy. A recession that was perhaps inevitable was deepened, and individuals who had set aside assets for education or retirement suddenly found these assets diminished or wiped out entirely.

So much had gone wrong in so short a time that government's ability to right the economy was limited. That said, the forceful reassertion of government's role as facilitator of the twin values of integrity and transparency has contributed powerfully to a sense that we are beginning to put our national economic house in order. With the acceptance of industry-wide codes of conduct by financial-services companies, new and more stringent disclosure and certification requirements under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and the aggressive policing of segments of the marketplace, the decline in investor confidence has been halted and perhaps even reversed.

The Outsourcing Bogeyman

Oh, just read it ... Drezner at his free trading best.

Let's move beyond scapegoating on school finance and find a permanent solution - State Rep. Scott Hochberg (Dist. 137)

Instead of rhetoric about killing Robin Hood, let?s fix what has made Robin Hood a constitutional necessity. And let?s build a system that will carry Texas schools through future generations without constantly being on the edge of meltdown.

Any finance system that is based on district lines will have severe inequalities. We?ve been trying to solve that since the first public schools were built in this state more than a century ago. That?s not ever going to change.

It is important to have the local control and accountability that you get by having local school boards and districts. But that doesn?t mean you have to raise your funds that way.

I propose we establish a statewide property trust to fund the public schools. The state would be constitutionally required to contribute at least as much to the trust as it is currently paying to school districts under Robin Hood. The state?s obligation would increase each year to keep the state?s share from dropping as property values increase.

Every school district would participate in the trust, by locally setting a tax rate that would apply to the property within the district. All school property taxes would be collected by the trust at rates set by each local district.

Each district would then receive all of its funding from the trust, based simply on the number of students in the district, the special needs of those students, any special characteristics of the district (such as size or being in an expensive labor market) and the tax rate set by the district.

The value of property within the district would no longer matter. Your child would have the same resources to succeed whether you live in the district that has the chemical plants, or in its neighbor that doesn?t, so long as those districts set the same tax rate.

Unlike a statewide property tax, each local school board would still control the property tax rate for its district. A district that wanted to spend more would still be able to do so, if its board is willing to approve a higher tax rate. Or, taxpayers could still benefit from a board?s decision to keep the rate stable or to lower it.

Unlike Gov. Rick Perry?s proposal, commercial property would still pay the same rate as residential property (except for homestead exemptions and freezes, which would apply as they do now). Businesses would not need to fear that they would be singled out for future tax increases.

School district revenues, now almost impossible to predict correctly, would be much more certain, reducing the need for some of the reserves currently held by districts. Taxpayers could understand the system, making it harder for districts to play games with the numbers.

And, state lawmakers could focus on the important questions of what we want our schools to do, how much we are willing to pay and how to raise the money, without having to referee funding battles between school districts, since every district would be funded in the same way as all others.

Best of all, school funding would grow as the state grows.

Reading through a proposal for public school funding is just one of those things that either works for you or it doesn't. Count me among the former. I'm a bit curious as to the experience of any other states that work with this concept of a property tax trust. Obviously, anytime something goes through the sausage factory of the legislature, the devil will be in the details. Two that pop up immediately are the amount that increased tax rates will be realized by the district (if less than 100%, my sense is that the incentive would be to hold down tax rates ... then again, would not conservatives see some merit in something less than 100% realization as a result?). Another question is one left unanswered ... while this proposal does address inequalities, how does the net effect differ from the current Robin Hood system of the rich pitching in for the poor? ... and what is to be done to add funding from the state towards schools?

Obviously, we've got to take one thing at a time & replacing Robin Hood with a new scapegoat is something foisted upon us now. I'd be curious to see some numerical projections on Scott's idea, though (how much do districts at each end see differently from the current setup & what effect does this move have on the tax base). I tend to agree that the complaint of districts that pay is a bit overstated. After all, we all feel like we're overtaxed, for crissakes. If nothing else, its great to see Scott plugging away on an issue he's incredibly well versed on.

First, let me start with an entertaining sidenote to this event, then I'll hit the big points. As many Democratic Party faithful may have noted over a period of years, there is always the continued presence of Laruochites. Now, the more normal Democrats among us need not worry about Larouchites taking over the party, they're not quite that abundant in number. But the ones that are around have a way of making their presence known, and rarely in positive ways. Among the tasks on hand for this gathering was to get ideas on some focus for the group ... essentially, what is it that we think important to engage in. The plurality of nominations were for voter registration. I agreed, in fact, I listed voter reg. as issue #1, #2, & #3 for the group to focus on (mind you, I was the only crank to offer three items). Well, the two obligatory Larouchites show up, both near my end of the table at an ever-noisy taqueria in Sharpstown that made listening to everyone a challenge. Their nomination for focus of the organization? Apparently, we need to talk about the issues more, particularly the looming financial crisis that will imperil us all before the Democratic Convention. Both of em ... verbatim, same damn thing. And they say its not a cult.

I'll give credit where credit is due to two people at the meeting. In this same round of ideas, one rather well regarded soul in our bunch politely says he doesn't have any focus that hasn't already been mentioned prior to his turn ... and then turns his ire on Larouchites, leaving a blistering attack on the cult for everyone to top off their enchiladas and tacos with. Although some will say these types of meetings should be all nice, polite, and sociable, I think there's a line to draw on who you make comfortable in any group. And with that, I agreed with the gentleman's statements 100% and appreciate him making them.

Second is with Pat, the group's organizer thus far (next meeting is adapting bylaws and electing officers). We discuss the matter above briefly. Pat notes that he is sometimes diplomatic to a fault, and I note that I'm more than willing to shoot straight and let the carnage that results sort itself out. Somewhere inbetween the two approaches is one that likely works best ... I'll willingly admit there's a limitation to my own approach, but I'm more than happy to have the company around me that loves me for that very quality than to have to worry about making everyone happy. Pat then proceeds to do a masterful job of locating that happy medium and state, very diplomatically, his objections to the Larouchians peddling their literature and riding their hobby horse of economic disaster everytime they open their mouth. I doubt it changed anything with the two in need of deprogramming, but I give Pat great credit for doing precisely what I think was called for in a manner in which I know I could not have done.

A few more frivolities involved arriving early to catch up on some reading. Once settled in with the group, everyone begins conversation. So imagine my comfort level with the following two scenarios:

- I get an invite to the peace rally downtown later on. I decline firmly but politely (compared to, say, the snarl that usually goes towards Larouchites peddling newspapers). I ask if International ANSWER is involved in the rally (later discovered that the group did co-sponsor several other rallies, but no idea if that was the case here in Houston ... still), noting for similar reasons to my objections to Larouchites, that one would do well to watch who they join company with. The response I got was "Well peace is peace." The conversation ended with an incredibly quick "No, its not." That's diplomatic for me, I suppose.

- A couple of older gentlemen seat to the left and right of me, swapping stories and banter. One goes off on how Republicans are against taxes and therefore against government. Also noted is that we need to get rid of this bunch in office (at last! ... a point of agreement), not just because of the individuals but because of "this idea they believe in." "This idea" was free trade (so much for agreement). My apologies for not having a picture of my reaction to that as well as the follow up reaction to the gentleman's elaboration that free trade is un-American. The same man works for an auto dealer that most certainly would not be in business were our borders shut down to imports. The irony was not lost on me at all. I opted for a sip of Sprite rather than a debate. Once more, diplomocy won out. Maybe I'm better at this then I thought. Dunno.

As it stands, the group is now in the stage of running through some bureaucratic hoops in order to get ourselves established and operational. In this process, I'm approached to gauge my interest in being an officer for Sharpstown Democrats. Instinctively, I'm pretty dismissive of the concept. I know that most rooms full of Democrats I walk into will lead to me being either the most conservative member in the room, or if not that, then at least the sanest of the moderates (granted, sometimes I can do my damndest to leave that in doubt if I want). I suppose it just comes with the territory that, as such, I know I'm not going to win a ton of arguments no matter how many merits I can stack on top of one another. My reaction to the notion is to reply that my first act of office might well be getting voted out of office. Perhaps I was too quick to accept the adapted John McCain assessment that any Democrats that would accept a pro-life, free-trading type who advocates charter schools, testing of vouchers in failed urban school districts, believes that some amount of personal freedom needs to be incorporated into Social Security, and also that sacrifice of our own lives is sometimes necessary and worthwhile to liberate millions abroad into their ranks had to be smoking something. Besides, the needs of this group are mostly organizational and the focus is one that still unites a wide swathe of partisans ... registering people to vote in a frontline swing area of the county.

With that, the more I thought about who would be best to lead this organization, the list was a bit short (not to flatter myself, though). The biggest point in this is that I can see full well what such an organization can do, the types of races it can have an impact on, how to get there, and also a history with some of the stumbling blocks for putting groups like this together. Oddly enough, I can see some parallels in the operations of the booster club for our local hockey team (having been involved for a number of years up to last season) and what to be mindful of in establishing Sharpstown Democrats. Lacking the knowledge that anyone else has a thorough view of what they see the club doing, I'd be a fool to not put my name into consideration. There's a gaggle of people who are very capable and could likely do the job just fine and dandy. But weighing in experience with party politics, experience in things like registering voters, herding the sometimes unherdable among us into a focused strategy ... these are all things that strike me as critical for this organization. If Sharpstown Democrats is successful, we could do well to help turn otherwise swing areas to end up increasingly towards the Democratic side of the ledger.

Throw in some joint footwork with groups in Bellaire, Meyerland, West U, and Braeswood, and there's an opportunity to make a difference in Senate District 17, also. Countywide races will note that the very area that these groups cover also reflect areas where Democrats are losing ground and need to shore up efforts to prevent further erosion of support. That's a big opportunity, and one that would be unforgivable to pass up.

Counteracting this is the possibility that I may yet move sometime next year, however. At the point I'm at right now, however, I think if and when I do move (it'll be after the election that I decide), it still leaves enough time to accomplish some major organizational feats in setting the group on firm foundation. Plus, we'll at least see some results of our actions based on the November elections. With that, I guess I throw my hat in the ring. Next month, we'll see if it gets thrown back at me.

The need to be upfront about policy & opinion differences, I think, is due to the fact that eventually, its bound to bug someone who thinks ideological purity is something that needs to be addressed. Obviously, I'm not all too enamored with the notion of such purity and conformity, but I think its bound to put a bee in someone's bonnet & I'd rather get a sense now of whether or not its going to be an issue. Guess we'll see whether or not it ends up being an issue soon enough.

Democrat misses deadline to face Crapo (Via PoliticalWire)

If anyone wants to peer into a possible future of what becomes of a one-party state, look no further than Idaho.

Democrats may have made history Friday, fielding no candidate to challenge Republican Mike Crapo in the U.S. Senate. A Democrat missed the filing deadline by a few seconds, leaving Crapo unopposed in his bid for a second six-year term.

The party, which contends it´s on the rebound after years of being resigned to irrelevance, mustered candidates for just 45 of the 105 legislative seats up for election this year. Even Sen. John Goedde of Coeur d´Alene, the only Republican in a district with two Democratic state representatives, escaped a Democratic challenger. Freshman Republican Cliff Bayer of Boise, who has never had his name on the ballot (he was appointed last year to fill a vacancy) won´t face a Democrat.

Democratic Party Chairwoman Carolyn Boyce ? who has presided over a near doubling of the party´s representation in the state Legislature ? contends the party is focusing its efforts on winnable races, instead of filling holes on the ballot.

Texas isn't Idaho, and there's some notable trends that give us much more hope than Idaho Dems should have. But lacking some sort of Hawaii-style meltdown by a strong political party (Democrats, in this case) in the throes of corruption (Texas GOP take note), there's a curious debate to be had over the best way to turn things around in such a situation.