During an interview with congressman Pete Sessions, of Dallas, he brought up the “Employee Free Choice Act,” which the Democrats have been pushing for the last couple of years. The bill would allow the National Labor Relations Board to certify a union without conducting a secret-ballot election. Under current law, employers can demand a government-sponsored secret ballot for a union to be recognized.

Under a process known as “card-check,” union members can designate their support for a union simply by signing an authorization card. Union organizers can visit members at their homes to get the signatures. The idea, Sessions said, is to reverse the decline in union membership and to “re-unionize America.” The bill has been reported out of committee in the House.

Sessions said this will be one of the first bills to be acted on next year if Obama is elected. But unless Democrats can muster the 60 votes need for cloture, it will die in the Senate.

It may seem far-fetched back home, but here in Washington there is a good case to be made for Edwards. Basically, it’s this: He is a “strong national defense” Democrat. Edwards became chairman of the House Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee in 2007. He championed an $11.8 billion in veterans’ health care and benefits, which is billed as the largest increase in veterans funding in the history of the Department of Veterans Affairs, going back 77 years. The American Legion gave him its Distinguished Service Award for 2008; it goes to only one of the 535 members of Congress. These are significant credentials for a party, and a presidential nominee, that are vulnerable on the issue of national security and support for the military.

Edwards’ name was entered in the vice-presidential sweepstakes by Nancy Pelosi. They got to know each other when they had adjacent offices some years ago. Pelosi is a strong supporter of veterans’ issues, which are popular with groups of swing voters such as “security moms”; being pro-vet is a way to oppose the war but “revere the warrior.” Many in Washington have dismissed Pelosi’s support for Edwards as simply an effort to keep the House in the game, but there is more to it than that. Edwards has always been good on television, and, while he is not as conservative as the blue dogs, he is far from a liberal. One Edwards support told me that only two Democratic presidents since 1900 have been elected when there was no Southerner on the ticket (including the nominee)–Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt. True, but … there have been only five other Democratic presidents since 1900, Truman, Kennedy, LBJ, Carter, and Clinton being the others).

What about the competition? Here circumstances might favor Edwards. Some of the major contenders are from red states: senators Bayh of Indiana and Webb of Virginia, and governor Sebelius of Kansas. Democrats don’t want to risk losing these key positions. On the other hand, the 17th congressional district of Texas is not so crucial to the fortunes of the Democratic party. There are other possibilities out there, such the other Edwards (or is Chet the “other” Edwards?), who is from North Carolina. But John couldn’t deliver his home state in 2000. Nor can Chet deliver Texas. I think, in the end, Obama will look for a bigger name, but Edwards is a serious contender.

I’m here to work on a feature story and also to interview members of the Texas congressional delegation. The latter has been less successful than the former, because, although I allotted an entire week for the visit, no votes were scheduled for last Friday or this Monday or Tuesday, which is another way of saying that they are taking a five-day weekend. Just about everybody went back to their districts. 

I learned more here from two interviews and a day of reading than I knew from a month of reading the Times and the Post and watching cable news back home for a month. In addition to the papers and the networks, a number of specialty publications are devoted to coverage of Congress. Two of them have been around for awhile – The Hill and Roll Call — and the others are Politico, CQ Today (Congressional Quarterly), and CongressDaily AM (National Journal). 

One of the interesting things that I picked up from these publications:

* Relations are strained between Senate Republicans and the White House over the president’s veto of the Medicare bill that prevented cuts in payments to physicians. Bush vetoed the bill after a 69-30 cloture vote in the Senate to end a “filibuster.” (These days, no one actually filibusters; they just object to a bill, and it takes two-thirds to override the objection.) Four Republican senators stuck with the president through the cloture vote but then voted to override his veto. Some of the comments from a GOP aide: “The White House asked its members to stick their necks out one time too many.” “”Even though it seemed clear that the votes weren’t there, the White House sent it back up to ask members to walk the plank once again.” And this from respected GOP elder statesman Richard Lugar, who, when asked if the White House was disgruntled about his vote to override, said he would tell them, “Well, you better get real and understand what is occurring out here in America, with actual people.”

For the one-millionth time, I cannot help but wonder what in the world has happened to the George W. Bush I knew. Or thought I knew. He isn’t even making a pretense of leading the country any more.

Rick Perry’s semiannual report, the first he has filed since announcing his intention to run again in 2010, showed the following numbers:

Total political contributions: $1,933,165.05
Total political expenditures: $1,502,828.86
Cash on hand: $2,978,864.07

This is not a particularly strong showing. The amount of expenditures is very high compared to the amount raised. Nevertheless, the election is still more than two years away. Perry has plenty of time to raise all the money he needs.

Note: Kay Bailey Hutchison is a federal official and does not file reports with the Texas Ethics Commission.

Here are Perry’s big-dollar (or, in some cases, very interesting) contributors:
Phil Adams, insurance, Bryan $25,000
American Electric Power Texas Committee $10,000
Larry Anders, Summit Alliance Companies chair & CEO, Plano $25,000
AT&T Texas PAC (two contributions) $5,250
John Barnhill, Brenham, UT Regent, $500
Lee Bass, Fort Worth, oil and investments, $25,000
Louis Beecherl, Dallas, oil, $25,000
Bell Helicopter Textron PAC $2,000
BG Distribution Partners, Houston, alcoholic beverages, $25,000
BGR PAC, Washington D.C., $3,500
Border Health PAC, Pharr, $25,000
Richard Box, Austin, dentist, $5,000 (Perry’s campaign treasurer) Republican activist)
Chip Briscoe (Mr. and Mrs.), Carrizo Springs, $2,500
J Brown (Mr. and Mrs.), Brownco Capital LLC $25,000
Charles Butt, San Antonio, HEB chairman $25,000
Celanese Corp. PAC, Dallas $2,500
Chesapeake Texans for Energy PAC, Oklahoma City, $5,000
William P. Clements, Dallas, former governor $1,000
Harlan Crow, Dallas, investments, $25,000
James Dannenbaum, Houston, UT regent and engineering co. $25,000
Dan Duncan, Houston, Chair of Enterprise Products $25,000
J. J. Ellis, Irving, investments $50,000
John Fainter, Austin, Ass’n of Electric Companies of Texas CEO $1,000
Dr. Antonio Falcon, Rio Grande City, pharmacist $5,000
Guy Farmer, Austin, Heritage Title $5,000
Tilman Fertitta, Houston, Landry’s Restaurants $4,010 airplane expense
Paul Foster, El Paso, Western Refining $50,276 (2 contributions)
L. Francis, El Paso, Prime Capital Management $25,000
T. Friedkin, Houston, Friedkin Companies $25,000
Gary Bushell LLP, Corpus Christi $5,000
Robert Gillikin, Dallas, retired $25,000
Dixon Golden, Center, optometrist $5,000
Guy Grace, Austin, investments $5,000
Gordon Graves, Austin, investments $8,001.50 (2 contributions)
Harold Hahn, El Paso, Rocky Mountain Mortgage Co. president $25,000
Steve Hammond, Dallas, Marketing Investors Corp. CEO $25,000
David Hartman, Austin, investor, $5,000
H. Heavin, Gatesville, Curves International founder, $8,000
Andrew Heller, Austin, Heller Associates CEO $4,800
Ed Hicks, Corpus Christi, automobile dealer $5,000
Forrest Hoglund, Dallas, investments $25,000
Peter Holt, Blanco, San Antonio Spurs, $35,305.22 (2 contributions)
Gaylord Hoyt, Corpus Christi, math professor $5,000
J. J. Huffines, Lewisville, Huffines Chevrolet-Subaru $25,000
J. Huffines Jr., Lewisville, President Huffines Chevrolet-Subaru $1,614
Ray Hunt, Dallas, Hunt Consolidated $15,000
Woody Hunt, El Paso, developer $25,000
Tood Hunter, Corpus Christi, attorney $2,000
Larry Hutto, Southlake, occupation unknown $5,000
International Bank of Commerce PAC, Laredo $1,000
C. F. Jordan, El Paso, attorney $5,000
Jerry Kane, Corpus Christi, beef packing $19,750 (4 contributions)
Charles Lawrence, Houston, Kirby Corp. chairman $25,000
Ron Lewis, Austin, occupation not listed $4,517 (air travel)
Joe Long, Austin, retired $25,000
Robert Marling, The Woodlands, CEO Woodforest National Bank $5,000
Massachusetts Mutual PAC $2,500
J. Matthews, Abilene, retired $10,000
L. Mays, San Antonio, Chairman Clear Channel Communications $25,000
B. McCombs, San Antonio, Red McCombs Enterprises $25,000
Hugh McElroy, Grapevine, Dallas Airmotives $7,991.12 (air travel)
Drayton McLane, Temple, McLane Group chairman $25,000
John McStay, Dallas, John McStay Inc. $25,000
Vance Miller, Dallas, Henry S. Miller Companies chairman $25,000
Jeffrey Minch, Austin, Littlefield Corp. $5,000
Lee Mitchell, Dallas, Cinemark USA chairman $2,000
Motorola PAC Multicandidate Committee, Washington, D.C. $3,000
John Nau, Houston, Silver Eagle Distributors (beer), $2,955.95 (air travel)
Barry Newman, Vestal N.Y., Northeast United CEO $5,600 (air travel)
Drew Nixon, Carthage, CPA $250 (former state senator)
Erle Nye, Dallas, Texas Utilities chairman & CEO $25,000
R. Onstead, Santa Fe, N.M., investments $10,000
Tom Perini, Buffalo Gap, restaurateur, $639.89 (event expense)
H. Perot, Plano, retired $25,000
Gary Petersen, Houston, partner EnCap Investments $50,000
Gene Phillips, Dallas, real estate consultant $25,000
Lonnie Pilgrim, Pittsburg, Pilgrim’s Pride owner $25,000 (+9,179.48 in-kind travel)
Pinnacle Anesthesia Consultants PAC, Dallas $10,000 (2 contributions)
James Pitcock, Houston, Williams Bros. Construction chairman & CEO $25,000
Paul Plunket, Dallas, energy consultant $5,000
Clayton Reaser, Victoria, Texas Teachers CFO $12,500
Vernon Reaser III, Victoria, Texas Teachers president $12,500
Richard Salwen, Austin, retired $25,000
Jeff Sandefer, Austin, Acton School of Business co-founder $25,000 (+$1,517.94 air travel)
Joe Sanderson, Laurel MS, Sanderson Farms chair and CEO $25,000
Jim Schwertner, Schwertner, cattle and banking $4,000
Richard Scott, Houston, Trans-Global Solutions president $25,000
Nicholas Serafy Jr., Brownsville, bioanalyst $5,000
Harold Simmons, Dallas, Contran Corp. CEO $25,000
L. Simmons, Houston, SCF partners president $25,000
Richard Slack, Pecos, retired $1,000 (former legislator)
Dian Stai, Abilene, retired $10,000
Charles Tate, Houston, Capital Royalty chairman $25,000
Texas Cancer PAC, Houston $2,500
Texas Optometric PAC, Austin $25,000
Tim Timmerman, Austin, real estate developer $3,600
J.C. Trevino III, Laredo, attorney $2,700
Kenny Troutt, Dallas, investments $25,000
Truitt for District 98, Keller $1,000
Brad Tucker, Houston, Mustang Cat president $25,000
Richard Wallrath, Centerville, rancher $12,000
Andy Wambsganss, Southlake, attorney and mayor $5,350 (event expense)
Washington Mutual PAC, Seattle WA, $2,500
Charles Wood, Dallas, AMS Staff Leasing chairman $25,000
John Woodhouse, Houston, retired $5,000
Frank Yturria, Brownsville, rancher $25,000

In the comments on my post, “It’s About Time,” referring to Colonel Davis’s resignation at DPS, there was some discussion about where the money was coming from for the renovation project at the Governor’s Mansion.

Here is my understanding of how it will work: As of September 1, 2007, responsibility for the facility, grounds, and upkeep of the Governor’s Mansion has been transferred to the State Preservation Board. This is a good move. The $10 million funding for the renovation project (before the fire) came from a Facilities Commission bond issue. No hanky panky here. Governor Perry appears to want the Preservation Board to manage the renovation. The board is allowed to take tax-free donations for the Capitol, but the statute has no such authority for the Governor’s Mansion. There will probably be a 501-c-3 organization created for fundraising. This will be separate from the Friends of the Governor’s Mansion, which was instrumental in the renovation during Bill Clements’ governorship. The Friends do have an endowment, but the major fundraising will take place through the 501-c-3. The fundraising announcement could come as early as this week.

I’m going to write about both party platforms, starting with the Republicans. It is a very interesting document, not only for the individual planks, but also for the frankness of its views and because it reveals some of the fissures inside the GOP. I will address only those planks that I regard as the most interesting, or as worthy of discussion. The entire platform can be found here.

The differences between the Republican platform and the Democratic platform is worth a comment. I’m not talking about their stands on issues. I’m talking about their relative abilities to write. The Republicans don’t mince words. It’s a good read, as platforms go. They reveal themselves, for better or worse. They don’t even mention the Democrats. The Democratic platform reads as though it was contracted out to public policy professionals. It is an exhaustive (and exhausting) commentary on issues in great detail–hard to read, and harder to write about. The Democrats frequently contrast their views with those of Republicans, especially the governor.

Now for the Republicans:

A list of ten principles follows a preamble. (This isn’t the good stuff):
–Respect for the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and limited government
–Human life is sacred
–Equal opportunity but not equal outcome
–Government spending is out of control
–Traditional marriage is the foundational unit of a healthy society
–Right of educational choice (public, private, home, religious)
–Strong and vibrant private sector unencumbered by government regulation
–Vigorously protect the sovereignty of the Unted States
–Peace through strength
–Swift and sure justice, stiff penalties, and opposition to judicial activism

Next comes a list of local and state priorities:
–Promote adult stem cell research (but prohibit funding of research that destroys human embryos)
–No unfunded mandates
–Inform juries about the actual length of sentences
–Judicial sentencing: Empower judges to assign punishment in felony cases.

The idea here is to allow juries to decide guilt or innocence only and to place sentencing in the hands of the trial judge. This is of importance mainly in capital cases. My initial reaction is that this violated the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a trial by jury. I was right, sort of. The U.S. Supreme Court held (Walton v. Arizona, 1990) that such a system is constitutional in capital cases. However, the Court overruled Walton twelve years later (Ring v. Arizona), holding that capital defendants are entitled to a jury determination of any fact on which the legislature conditions an increase in their maximum punishment. I find it ironic that the plank violates the Constitution that the platform vows to respect and cherish.

–Law enforcement should make child and sex abuse and methamphetamine drug manufacturing their top priority.

As bad as these crimes are, I think everyday violence is more prevalent, and more of a threat to the preservation of law and order, and should be the top priority.

–Protect the authority of the State Board of Education to manage the Permanent School Fund and control textbook content, expand the cap on charter schools, and remove funding for bilingual education.

This board majority has no authority; it only has biases. It’s a disgrace.

–Abolish the School Property Tax. Fully fund public schools using surplus revenue, existing budget resources, consumption taxes, and funds released by cutting unnecessary expenditures.

Texas doesn’t fully fund anything–and certainly not public schools. Surplus revenue is not always available, and unnecessary expenditures are in the eye of the beholder. The property tax has the advantage of being reserved for local governments like school districts and thus the revenue it raises is not subject to budget competition from public health, highways, and law enforcement. This plank just reinforces what I have observed in the Legislature: The ideological base of the Republican party doesn’t give a damn about public schools.

Next section: “Preserving American Freedom”
–Patriot Act: We urge review and revisions of those portions of the USA Patriot Act, and related executive and military orders and directives that erode constitutional rights and essential liberties of citizens.
–Emergency War Powers: We charge the President to cancel the state of national emergency and charge Congress to repeal the War Powers Act and end our declared state of emergency.
–Elimination of Executive Orders: We demand elimination of presidential authority to issue executive orders and other mandates lacking congressional approval….

See what I mean about the platform exposing the fissures in the Republican party? Here the party’s libertarian wing is at odds with the national security wing. The Texas Republican Party is criticizing the Texan President of the United States (who used to be their leader), and good for them. The Bush Administration’s obsession with expanding the power of the executive branch flies in the face of traditional conservativism’s antipathy for strong central government. In fact, the subhead for this section is, “Limiting the Expanse of Executive Power.”

–Census: We oppose the Census Bureau’s obtaining date beyond the number of citizens residing in a dwelling.

This is too black-helicopter for me. Is the Republic going to fall if the census taker asks their ages?

–[We] oppose initiative and referendum.

When Republicans were in the minority in the Legislature, they were for it.

–Affirmative Action: We believe it is simply racism disguised as a social virtue. We believe that policies that lower standards on the basis of race or gender create a disincentive to excellence….We believe that rights belong to people–not groups. Affirmative action falsely casts those who advocate merit as racist. Affirmative action casts doubt on minority achievement making such achievement as seemingly unearned.

Affirmative action is an attempt to level the playing field called equality of opportunity. It is easy to attack on theoretical grounds as reverse discrimination, and in individual cases (Cheryl Hopwood comes to mind) it has operated unfairly, but I think that it has done more good for American society than harm.

–Eminent Domain: We support limiting the definition of eminent domain to exclude seizing private property for public or private economic development for increased tax revenues.

I agree with this. The city of Arlington is getting the land to build the Dallas Cowboys’ new stadium through condemnation. I think it’s wrong to take people’s land to build Jerry Jones a stadium.

–Environment, Property ownership, and Natural Resources: We reaffirm our belief in the constitutional concept of the right to own property without governmental interference.

There is no constitutional right to own property without governmental interference. Zoning restricts property rights, but it is constitutional. Burn bans imposed by government in dry weather are constitutional. Restrictions on polluting waterways are constitutional. Regulations disallowing hunting on your own land in closed season are constitutional. Governments can acquire property from willing sellers to protect endangered species. The plank also opposes “conservation easements on our natural resources administered by organizations unaccountable to voters” and “vast acquisition of government land to protect endangered species.” Conservation easements involving groups like the Nature Conservancy don’t threaten private property ownership; they support ownership by providing income to hard-pressed rural landowners. The section ends by favoring “election of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality chairman” and urging “elimination of the Endangered Species Act.” The proposal to elect the TCEQ chair is truly bizarre. Don’t the platform-writers know that the environmentalists in the cities will outvote the rural property-rights advocates? Elect the chairman of TCEQ and all the water in rural Texas will be in Dallas and Houston swimming pools in ten years.

–Restore constitutional integrity in the legislative process. Congress should “prohibit the current practice of inserting into otherwise unrelated legitimate legislation funding for or federal regulations for special interest issues into virtually every special piece of legislation.”

What? No special interest issues? That’s the only kind of issues there are.

Reforming the Judicial System

–Jury service should be limited to registered voters.
This is just awful. It’s a blatant elitist attempt to restrict jury service to the most affluent, most educated voters. I googled “education level of registered voters” and came up with this language from a State of Virginia web site:

[A person is] “more likely to register and vote the higher the:
–office being elected
–voter’s education level
–voter’s income
–voter’s age
–voter’s employment as a civil servant”

–Candidate Eligibility: A candidate running for office should be required to reside within the geographical boundaries of the office sought. Some readers may remember that Joe Nixon tried to pass a bill to this effect in the 2005 session. The feeling among some members was that he was trying to embarrass, if not unseat, certain members, among them Hubert Vo. The U.S. Constitution does not require that members of Congress reside within their districts; it mandates only that a representative must be an “inhabitant” of the state he represents (Article 2, Section 2.2). Parliament repealed its residency requirement in 1774. Many MPs do live in their districts, but likely cabinet officers are typically assigned to run in districts that are safe for members of their party. The Texas Constitution requires that senators and representatives be residents of their districts for one year preceding their election. The question at issue is whether there is wiggle room in “resident.” Some members have been known to rent an apartment in their districts and maintain their residency elsewhere. Some, from rural areas, live in Austin and use their parents’ address for residency. There was a flap over residency in the Dee Margo-Pat Haggerty race. This was the Texas Observer’s take:

“… Haggerty is questioning Margo’s residency in District 78. Back in October, while still a resident of District 77, Margo told the El Paso Times that he wanted to build a single-story home in Haggerty’s district because ‘the family’s longtime housekeeper is crippled, and it would be easier for her to get around in a one-level home than in the Margo’s current three-level home.’

To run in the March primary, Margo needed to be in the house by November 4 [one year before the 2008 election] to meet the state’s one-year residency requirement for the general election. Haggerty says Margo hasn’t shown that he relocated in time. Margo counters in news reports that he moved into an apartment in the district just in time.”

My view of the issue, which I expressed to Nixon at the time, is that the matter of whether a member “resides” in his district ought to be up to his constituents. If they object, they can tell him so at the ballot box. I don’t know why this provision is in the platform, but I bet that it is written with a particular target, or targets, in mind.

–Remedies to Activist Judiciary: We call Congress and the President to use their constitutional powers to restrain activist judges. We urge Congress to … remove judges who abuse their authority. Further, we urge Congress to withhold Supreme Court jurisdiction in cases involving abortion, religious freedom, and the Bill of Rights.

Who wrote this plank? Tom DeLay? It is reminiscent of the time when he was threatening to have the judges involved in the Terri Schiavo case impeached. I agree with a previous plank that supported the principle of judicial restraint and the practice of interpreting and applying the law rather than making it. And the idea of stripping the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction in cases involving abortion, religious freedom, and the Bill of Rights is, well, again the word that best describes it is “bizarre.” It seems to assume that the Court will always rule against the Republican position in cases involving abortion, religious freedom, and the Bill of Rights. What if religious freedom is imperiled? Don’t Republicans want the Court to have jurisdiction? This is dangerous nonsense.

Restoring Integrity to Our Elections

–Protecting union member’s dues: We support legislation requiring labor unions to obtain consent of the union member before that member’s dues can be used for political purposes.

An oldie but goodie attempt to limit labor’s political clout, which is (choose one) a. waning, b. overrated, c. nonexistent.

–Voter registration: We support restoring integrity to the voter registration rolls and to reducing voter fraud. We support repeal of all Motor Voter laws; re-registering voters every four years, requiring photo ID of first-time registrants….

Repeal of motor voter laws! Why don’t they just come out and say that they don’t think that ordinary people should vote? The Republicans’ desire to reduce voter participation is obvious–and, as I said in the beginning, they are not embarrassed about it.

–Primary filing date: We urge changing the date of the filing for the March primary from January 2 to the second Monday in January.

This is a good idea. The early filing deadline is an advantage for incumbents, who are always thinking about the next election, even during the Christmas holidays, while normal people who might run have other things on their minds.

–Fair Election Procedures: We support a federal or state government-issued photo idea at in-person voting; increased scrutiny and security in balloting by mail; prohibition of Internet voting and any electronic voting lacking a verifiable paper trail; prohibition of mobile voting; … repeal of the unconstitutional “Help America Vote Act.”

HAVA, the Help America Vote Act, was passed in 2002 and signed into law by President Bush. The act has come in for a great deal of criticism because it represents a federal intrusion into elections, which traditionally have been a state responsibility, and greatly raises the cost of elections by requiring that lever and punch-card voting machines be replaced by electronic machines. HAVA was a response to the fiasco in Florida over hanging chads. This is a scary piece of legislation. It requires states to use electronic voting machines. Whether they are secure is a subject of fierce debate. Whether they provide an adequate paper trail is a subject of fierce debate. I would vote with the Texas Republican party to repeal the act.

–Campaign Finance Reform: We urge immediate repeal of the McCain-Feingold Act.

Uh, folks, the Democrats are getting all the campaign money these days. You might want to keep the Act’s restrictions on fundraising in force.

–Platform/Legislation: We urge the Legislature to permit a political party to require each of its candidates to indicate their position on each platform plank before their acceptance on the primary ballot.

I especially look forward to seeing Rick Perry indicate his support for the plank on the Trans-Texas Corridor that reads: “We emphatically oppose the Trans-Texas Corridor in any form or manner. We call for full investigation of any public officials authorizing any form of eminent domain for the Trans-Texas Corridor and foreign funding.” In the real world, there is no way that lawmakers are going to give political activists veto power over their candidacy–nor should they. The platform is a statement of principles, not a loyalty oath.

–Governor’s Veto: We urge a Constitutional Amendment permitting the Legislature to return for a three-day session in response to the governor’s veto.

Ouch! A slap in the Perry’s face. This is a constitutional amendment proposed by Houston Republican Gary Elkins.

–Public Integrity Unit: We urge the Legislature to secure the impartiality and probity of the Travis County Public Integrity Unit, by transferring its powers and funding to an impartial statewide elected judicial entity.

And what might that be? Our judges are elected on a partisan basis. In any event, even if state funding is removed, the District Attorney of Travis County has jurisdiction over all crimes committed in the county.

–Term Limits: We urge Congress, the Legislature, and the Republican Party to establish reasonable term limits.

I’m opposed. It should be up to a member’s constituents whether that member deserves to be reelected–with one exception. I do think that in a system in which the governor’s appointees have so much power, future governors ought to be subject to a two-term limit. Otherwise, as we have seen under Rick Perry, the constitutional scheme of a legislative-driven state government is in danger of becoming a strong-governor system, which is exactly what the framers of the Texas Constitution did not want.

–November Election: All public elections, except for primary elections, should be held in November.

I suppose that I should commend this plank because I have been critical of planks intended to diminish voter participation. But I won’t. I think it’s a bad idea to mix partisan races with nonpartisan races for city and school district offices. Nobody is going to pay much attention to local races when there are major races on the ballot. I am also concerned that the real motive behind this plank is to maximize the turnout in opposition to school bond elections.

Honoring the Symbols of Our American Heritage

No surprises here. Republicans…
…oppose any governmental action to restrict public display of the Ten Commandments
…supports the Pledge Protection Act, which “amends the federal judicial code to deny jurisdiction to any federal court, and appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of the Pledge of Allegiance or its validity under the Constitution.”
…supports American English as the official language of Texas and the United States.
…supports establishment of penalties for any form of desecration of the American Flag.
…calls for restoration of plaques honoring the Confederate Widow’s Pension Fund contribution that were removed from state buildings.

I’m a history major. I don’t approve of rewriting or editing history. My solution to this issue, which sparked a two-hour floor fight in the Legislature, is to have an exhibit in the Bullock Museum about the contribution of the Confederate Widow’s Pension Fund.

At this point, I am going to post what I have written so far. I have covered only five pages of the platform. Fourteen more to go, including pages and pages on right to life and family issues.

So Colonel Tom Davis, the head of the Department Public Safety, on whose watch the Governor’s Mansion burned, has announced his resignation. Davis issued a brief statement that read, in its entirety, “After 43 years and 9 months with the Texas Department of Public Safety, I am retiring on Aug. 31, 2008.”

It’s about time. It seems to me that the political leadership has been inexplicably complacent about the shortcomings of security at the Governor’s Mansion — despite the fact that Governor Perry is the most security-conscious chief executive in my memory. Clearly, he has been working behind the scenes to get rid of Davis. We still need to know what Perry knew about the security problems at the Mansion and when he knew it. Did DPS inform him about its lack of personnel and its malfunctioning alarm and surveillance equipment? I bet not. If Perry had known, given his concern about security, he would have done something about them.

The Legislature is supposed to provide oversight of state agencies. A legislative investigation of DPS’s performance is overdue. Yes, the Sunset Advisory Commission has been scrutinizing DPS, and they have issued a very critical report about the hidebound agency. But they are concerned primarily with management issues. There is no substitute for a public hearing with the narrow focus of what went wrong at the Mansion. Dewhurst and Craddick should create a joint ad hoc committee, as they did when the TYC scandal broke, and appoint members who would ask the tough questions. It’s not too late.

This was the response from the Vo campaign to Greg Meyers’ press release detailing various lawsuits complaining of conditions at apartment complexes owned by Vo:

The Greg Meyers attack machine continued its personal and inaccurate attacks on the popular Democratic Representative, Hubert Vo. The latest version of his opponent’s website fabricated a supposed pattern of neglect in Mr. Vo’s apartments.

The website highlighted a complaint filed in August of 2000 that an African-American resident sought protection under the Fair Housing Act because the “apartment complex management sought to have her evicted.” They stated that the resident, who moved into the Wall Street Apartments in 1996, had complained of raw sewage and rodents. In addition, she claimed that when she tried to relocate to another unit that she was “falsely informed that there were no vacant units available.”

Sounds bad but, unfortunately for Mr. Meyers, he never bothered to check the facts. Mr. Vo actually bought the complex in question on October 16, 2000, two months after the Fair Housing complaint was filed and four years after the initial complaints were made. Simply stated, he was not the owner at the time of the problems.

If Rep. Vo’s opponent cannot bother to check the facts on a website available to the public and would rather focus his campaign on inaccurate personal attacks, would you want him as your representative? Could you trust him?

Congressional Quarterly is reporting that Barack Obama is making inroads in traditionally red states. Readers may recall that Karl Rove questioned Obama’s strategy (Rove on Obama’s Chances to Win a Red State). It is fundamental that Obama must change the political map in order to win the presidency, but the question is whether he should focus on trying to steal a couple of red states or concentrate his resources on the swing states that have been pivotal in the last two elections (Florida, Ohio, Missouri, Iowa, New Mexico). Here is how the red-state strategy is fairing:

* Montana: Bush won by 11 points in 2004, Obama leading McCain by 5 points
* Colorado: Bush +4, Obama +5
* Virginia: Bush +8, Obama +2
* New Mexico: Bush +1, Obama +3
* Florida: Bush +5, Obama +2
* Indiana: Bush +20, Obama +1
* Georgia: Bush +16, McCain +1
* Mississippi: Bush +20, McCain +4
* Alaska: Bush +26, McCain +4
* North Carolina: Bush +13, McCain +4

That these states are even close indicate the dire circumstances for the Republican party.

–The only Democrat to carry Montana since LBJ in 1964 was Clinton in 1992.
–The only Democrat to carry Colorado since LBJ was Clinton in 1992
–No Democrat has carried Virginia since LBJ
–New Mexico should not be classified as a red state. Bush won it in 2004, lost it in 2000.
–Florida has voted Democratic only twice since LBJ, for Carter in 1976 and Clinton in 1996
–The last Democrat to carry Mississippi was Carter in 1976
–The last Democrat to carry Alaska was LBJ
–The only Democrat to carry North Carolina since LBJ was Carter in 1976

Like all polling, these results are a snapshot in time, and this particular time happens to be a low point for John McCain. His campaign is in turmoil and his message discipline is nonexistent. It has been four months since McCain wrapped up the GOP nomination, and he has basically squandered that time. The biggest worry for McCain is something he can’t do anything about: Rising gasoline prices and the worsening economic news can only feed the public’s appetite for change. This is real trouble for the Republicans. Meanwhile, Obama’s luck is in. He gets the benefit of being criticized by Jesse Jackson.

There was never any doubt that Hubert Vo’s reputation as a slumlord would become the major issue in the 149th District race. Yesterday Greg Meyers’ consultants, the Patriot Group, issued a release that challenged Vo’s claim that he was unaware of substandard conditions at apartment complexes he owned. The release included stark details of residents’ complaints:

Lawsuits on file at the Harris County Courthouse reveal a startling pattern of management neglect, inadequate safety, physical intimidation, racial discrimination and retaliation at apartment complexes owned by State Rep. Hubert Vo.

These lawsuits directly contradict Rep. Vo’s previous claims to not have known about conditions at his apartment complexes prior to being confronted by city inspectors and recent media scrutiny. The lawsuits cover a period from 1996 to 2007 and were all confidentially
settled out of court by Rep. Vo.

Greg Meyers, the challenger to Rep. Vo in House District 149, called the lawsuits a revealing pattern of neglect. “It is troubling that any public servant would allow this type of problem to occur. But what is more disturbing is the fact that Rep. Vo denied knowledge of the dangerous and unhealthy living conditions at his apartment complexes. These lawsuits show he has clearly known about the problems for many years.”

The apartment complexes owned by Rep. Vo have been the subject of an investigation by the City of Houston’s Neighborhood Protection Corps for dangerous and unhealthy living conditions. In addition, a special report by the Houston Chronicle also revealed numerous building code violations including faulty and exposed electrical wiring, rotted wood on balconies, stagnant water in swimming pools, mold-invested and damaged dry-wall, broken windows and unsecured vacant units.

The lawsuits settled by Rep. Vo consist of the following accounts:

* In 1996, Alecia Alexander, an African-American female, moved into the Wall Street Apartments owed by Rep. Vo. Ms. Alexander complained of raw sewage backed up in her unit, feces in her bedroom, and rodents. On several occasions, Ms. Alexander made requests to management for relocation to another unit. These requests were denied and Ms. Alexander was falsely informed that there were no vacant units available. Ms. Alexander witnessed other non African-American residents being frequently relocated. In August of 2000, Ms. Alexander sought protection under the Fair Housing Act because the apartment complex management sought to have her evicted after she filed complaints with HUD. Rep. Vo settled this federal case out of court in 2003.

[final summing-up paragraph omitted]

The Craddick camp is very bullish about Meyers’ prospects. The challenger has a formidable resume that includes two terms on the Houston school board and the chairmanship of the West Houston Chamber of Commerce. And the slumlord issue is a serious one in a district in which renters comprise 44% of the households.

The problem for Meyers is that the demographic tide in this district has been running strongly in favor of the Democrats during this decade. In 2002, Republican incumbent Talmadge Heflin defeated unknown challenger Andrew Tran, 55.52% to 44.47%. In 2004, Vo pulled off a shocking upset by defeating Heflin, then the chairman of the House Appropriations committee, by 50.03% to 49.96%, in a race that wasn’t decided until an election challenge that went to the House of Representatives. In 2006, Vo won the rematch comfortably, thanks in part to Heflin’s widely publicized attempt to adopt his maid’s child. The margin was 54.27% to 45.72%. The trend is inexorable. The voting age population in the 2000 census was 40.9% Anglo, 21.1% Hispanic, 17.8% black, and 20.6% other, mainly Asian. (Don’t ask me why these numbers don’t add up to an even 100%; I just work here.) The census was eight years ago. Those numbers are more favorable for the Democrats today than they were in 2000. Were it not for the slumlord issue, Vo could expect to garner 56-58% of the vote.

Other than Heflin, Republican candidates have fared well here. In 2006, Perry beat Bell in the 149th, 40.2% to 35.1%. The downballot Republican statewides generally ran in the low to mid fifties. In fact, Vo was the only Democrat to carry the district. If this were an off-year election, I think Meyers would have a great shot to beat Vo. It’s easier to get voters’ attention in an off-year. But it’s a presidential year, and the Democrats are more energized than the Republicans, and the demographics are in their favor. Vo will underperform the demographics, but he ought to be able to win with the help of straight-ticket Democratic votes.

The main pitfall for Vo is that in 2006 he made the D’s nervous by starting his campaign late. That is a mistake he can’t afford to repeat.

The Huffingtonpost blog today carries a story headlined “GOP Looks to Redistrict Itself Back into Power.” The gist is that Republicans have “a sense of dread” over a “potentially massive” loss of seats in Congress this fall. The contingency plan: Win a majority of governorships (Democrats currently hold 28 of 50) and use the governors’ influence over redistricting to have state legislatures draw maps friendly to GOP candidates.

This might sound to Texas ears as the kind of story that is of inside-the-Beltway interest only, except for the first organization mentioned in the story:

“The 2010 elections are almost as important or equally important as the elections this year. After redistricting in 2011, the governors are going to have a huge influence in determining the political makeup of this country,” said Chris Schrimpf, a spokesman for the Republican Governors Association. “We could feasibly see 25 to 30 congressional seats swing as the result of redistricting. And the state legislatures and governor could determine that swing. Can the National Republican Congressional Committee make a statement like that with a straight face? It would be harder for them.”

Ah yes, the Republican Governors Association. Chris Schrimpf works for Rick Perry. The slap at the NRCC was vintage Perry. The message is that if Republicans want to swing 25 to 30 congressional seats to the GOP in 2010, they should put Perry and the RGA in charge–and contribute their money to the RGA–rather than the NRCC. Elect governors who are willing and eager to gerrymander in 2011. It worked in Texas, didn’t it?

Whatever you or I may think of Perry as a governor, it would be a mistake to think that he is anything less than a brilliant politician. He has a homing instinct for hidden sources of power, like the RGA. He understands money and he understands message, and he knows how to use both. If he is able to make himself into the chief fundraiser for Republican governors in 2010, he will establish himself as a major force in Republican circles, if he is not that already. I have believed for some time now that he is positioning himself to run for president in 2012. He could come out of the 2010 elections holding IOUs from a lot of governors he helped elect. That is a pretty good way to start a presidential campaign. Don’t laugh.

Oh, no, not again. Today’s papers carry the dismaying news that the chairman of the House Appropriations committee is bent on making a spectacle of himself — and the House — one more time. He has vowed to reintroduce a new version of HB 2684 from the 80th Legislature, which lengthens the waiting period before a divorce becomes final from 60 days to two years. The longer waiting period can be avoided if the couple takes a two-day marital counseling course that teaches conflict management, communication skills, and forgiveness skills.

Why is it that legislators insist on meddling in things that are none of their damned business? What unhappy couples want to unjoin, let no man try to put back together. The obvious fact here is that if couples wanted their marriage to be saved, they would already have sought marital counseling. Any competent counselor would have instructed them in the arts of conflict management, communication skills, and forgiveness skills. The remedy proposed by the bill is a waste of time–of the couple’s time and of the Legislature’s time.

As the result of this and other questionable legislation that Mr. Chisum carried last session, he ended up on Texas Monthly’s Ten Worst list. I hope it doesn’t happen again, but I fear the Worst. After publication, Mr. Chisum sent me the following letter. My response to him follows.

According to your Best & Worst Legislators article, it’s bad to believe that marriage should be saved if at all possible. It’s bad for people to learn how to forgive, and it’s bad for the Bible as literature be offered in high school. If you define those beliefs as bad, then I’m rotten to the core. Howevere, what you so blithely left out of your profile of me are the facts: marriages that remain intact (with the exception of abusive situations) create happier, healthier families; forgiveness is not easy, but when extended can have dramatically positive effects; and recent surveys have shown that English professors and teachers believe that Biblical knowledge confers a major educational advantage to those who have it. I would rather be on the ten worst list because I stood by my beliefs and maintained my integrity than sell out to get on the ten best list. Regarding you listing me as one of the ten worst, let me just say that I extend to you my sincere forgiveness.

This was my response, which I posted in the blog, along with his letter:

“Warren Chisum is not on the Worst list because he did something egregious. He’s not that kind of legislator, nor is he that kind of man. He’s certainly not on the Worst list because he wanted to save marriages and authorize teaching of the Bible in high school. He is on the list because he ran afoul of the maxim, ‘Of those to whom much is given, much is asked.’ As chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Mr. Chisum achieved the pinnacle of legislative power and influence. My belief is that lawmakers who reach that level have an obligation to be role models. It is their duty to provide the example to younger members of what it takes to become a respected policymaker. I didn’t manufacture that belief this year. It has become ingrained in the way that I look at the Legislature, from watching the very best members operate over many sessions: Bill Ratliff, David Sibley, Steve Wolens, Rob Junell, Paul Sadler, Bill Messer, Stan Schlueter, Kenny Marchant. Here’s the standard as I believe that these members practiced it: You can’t mix your policy agenda and your personal agenda. One of the reasons is that when a legislator in a position of power takes a divisive social issue to the floor, or a lobby bill, or a vendor bill, ordinary members feel under pressure to vote for it, to avoid reprisals. Do I think Warren Chisum is a vindictive person? Certainly not. Do members worry about crossing the chairman of Appropriations? Certainly. Chisum did things you couldn’t have made Bill Ratliff or Paul Sadler do with a cattle prod. He moved the previous question to cut off debate when there were only four amendments left to be discussed. He lost. He carried a vendor bill (to provide drivers’ records at DPS to insurance companies) to the floor as a favor to a lobbyist, lost, arranged to reconsider the vote the next day, and lost again. After the Public Education committee rewrote his Bible study bill to strengthen its academic aspects, he tried to substitute his version, which the committee had viewed as flawed, on the floor. He lost again. I was on the floor for these episodes, and the members I talked to were shocked. I wrote in the Best and Worst Legislators article that ‘Chisum squandered his gravitas.’ This may seem like a victimless crime, in which the harm is done only to the perpetrator. But that’s not the case. When respected senior legislators expose themselves to defeat and repudiation, everybody loses. That’s why Warren Chisum is on the Ten Worst list, and why I am sad to see him there.”

* * * *

When the Best and Worst Legislators article was first contemplated in 1973, the people involved in writing the story–primarily William Broyles, Griffin Smith, and Richard West, all of whom were quite familiar with the legislative process (I was still working in the Senate)–decided that our standard for judging legislators should be the way the members judge each other. There is a collective understanding of what makes a good legislator and what makes a bad one. That standard has evolved over the last 35 years, but in general it starts with respect for the process. What Mr. Chisum did last session was not appropriate leadership for someone at the very top of the legislative pyramid. You don’t try to sneak through a vendor bill; you don’t shut off your colleagues from debate, and you don’t try to enact your personal moral beliefs into law, no matter how much you believe in them. You guard your reputation and your stature. He didn’t do that, and other members who I respect were dismayed that he hadn’t. I will be the first to say that Mr. Chisum is a very able and sincere legislator. He has a quick, agile mind in floor debate. He has a good feel for the mood of the House at any given moment. He’s not the most knowledgeable appropriations chairman the House has had, but he is fair. He just cherishes his prejudices too much to give them up.

The last item I posted about Rove ["D's use the specter of Karl Rove to raise money"] drew one comment that asked, “What’s the point?” I shouldn’t have to explain, but:

1. Rove is the smartest political consultant in the business.
2. He is the most dominant figure in his line of work since Lee Atwater.
3. He also happens to be a Texan.

I’m not trying to make you like him. I’m not trying to whitewash whatever he did in the White House that he refuses to testify under oath about. I am not offering any warranties on his character. I’m just passing on his observations about politics that I think are pertinent. So I have signed up to receive his pronouncements by e-mail.

Here’s an example: The conventional wisdom about this election is that Obama has a huge lead on McCain in fundraising. Writing in the Wall Street Journal on Thursday, Rove provided some interesting numbers that suggest otherwise:

On the money front, how do Sens. Obama and McCain stack up? No contest, it seems. Since the campaign began, Mr. Obama has raised a staggering $295-plus million, versus Mr. McCain’s almost $122 million. But that’s misleading.

Mr. Obama spent a lot to win the nomination. So how much cash did he and his rival have when the general election effectively began in June? As of May 31, Mr. Obama had $43.1 million on hand while Mr. McCain had $31.6 million - a significant but not overwhelming advantage.

There is also the cash raised by the Republican and Democratic National Committees. Each candidate depends on the party committees for certain expenditures - registration, voter identification and get-out-the-vote drives, materials distributed by volunteers, even some advertising. Here, the Republicans had $53.5 million in hand on May 31, versus the Democrats’ paltry $4 million. Thus Mr. McCain and the RNC have $38 million more than Mr. Obama and the DNC.

Here is another interesting piece, unpublished but included in the e-mail. It is entitled “Obama’s Red State Gambit.”

Obama is up with his second general election ad. It’s running in 21 states at the cost of nearly $15 million. Among his targets: the traditionally Republican strongholds of Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, South Carolina, Montana, Indiana, Alaska, Nebraska, and North Dakota. What does history suggest Obama’s chances of swiping these states from the GOP are?

Rove compares the results from all 50 states and the District of Columbia for all elections from 1976 to 2004 to determine how often shifts have occurred in a state from one election to the next. His analysis produced 357 data points. For example, Carter won his native state of Georgia in 1980 by 15 points. Four years later, Reagan, running for reelection, won Georgia by 18 points.

Nebraska
Required shift from 04: 33 points
Frequency of shift: 1 in 357 (.03%)

North Dakota/Alaska
Required shift from 04: 27 points
Frequency: 4 of 357 (1.1%)

Indiana
Required shift from 04: 21 points
Frequency: 9 of 357 (2.5%)

Montana
Required shift from 04: 20 points
Frequency: 12 of 357 (3.4%)

South Carolina
Required shift from 04: 17 points
Frequency: 18 of 357 (5%)

Georgia
Required shift from 04: 16 points
Frequency: 20 of 357 (5.6%)

North Carolina
Required shift from 04: 12 points
Frequency: 41 of 357 (11.5%)

Virginia
Required shift from 04: 8 points
52 of 357 (14.6%)

Rove concludes:

Is spending money in these deep red states a smart strategic move? It’s not out of the question that Obama might flip one of these red states come November–the 8-point shift he needs in Virginia has happened 52 times (14.6% of possible outcomes)–but the historical record suggests his actions may be either unwise, an attempt to goad McCain into spending money unwisely, or a sign of the Obama campaign’s hubris about its ability to raise money.

Rove obviously thinks Obama’s summer media buy was a bad move. But was it? I don’t think so. 2008 is not 2004:
1. John Kerry was a weak candidate with little appeal to swing voters.
2. The scandals that would cost the Republicans control of Congress were still in the future.
3. The economy was in relatively good shape.
4. The Republican party was united behind their candidate.
5. Change was not in the air in 2004. It is today.

All of these factors suggest that big swings are far more likely to occur in 2008 than they were in 2004. Furthermore, several of the red states where Obama is spending money are small-market states with low population. He doesn’t have to turn a lot of votes to achieve a swing in places like Alaska, Nebraska, Montana, and North Dakota. Nor does he have to spend lot of money.

In fact, Rove’s own electoral map suggests that Obama is spending his money very wisely indeed. Of the nine red states that Obama is targeting, Rove shows Obama leading in Montana; Virginia and North Dakota as tossup states; and McCain leading by only 5 points in Nebraska, 4 in Alaska, and 4 in North Carolina. In the three remaining states, McCain’s lead is in single digits (South Carolina +9, Georgia +7, Indiana +5). As Bush proved in 2000 when he won West Virginia, it only takes one or two swing states to change an election–and Rove’s map is already showing Obama ahead in three key states that were won by Bush: Colorado, New Mexico, and (drumroll please) Ohio.

This letter was sent out over the Internet tonight by consultant James Carville, urging Democrats to beat the midnight deadline with their contributions to Barack Obama. The reason: In their hour of travail, Republicans have turned to Karl Rove to save them. Here is the text of Carville’s letter.

Republicans are placing a big bet on Karl Rove.

James Carville

I just spoke to David Beckwith, formerly (according to Burnt Orange Report) with the Cornyn campaign. He called me from the Cornyn campaign office, for which, according to Burnt Orange, he is not supposed to be employed, having been fired last week by none other than Karen Hughes for his involvement in the “Big Bad John” campaign video that has been greeted with hilarity in circles that do not wish Cornyn well.

“Karen Hughes has no role whatsoever in the campaign,” Beckwith told me. “Furthermore, we consider the video a plus. Not only am I still working for the campaign, but I am also part time in the senator’s state office.”

Far be it from me to criticize a fellow blogger for publishing — I’m shocked, shocked — rumors. especially one that isn’t correct. But the episode wasn’t a total loss for the BOR folks. They did manage to unmask Beckwith as a blogger using the pseudonym of Buck Smith to post unfavorable comments about Democrats. Again, I’m shocked. Really.