Takeaways From the GOP Convention
In reading the last couple of days of convention coverage, I found two key takeaways that have been overlooked:
(1) Rick Perry is still very strong with the base of his party. He still connects with the rank and file when he makes a rousing speech, as he did at the convention in Fort Worth. Of course, Perry was addressing the 18,000 strongest and most loyal Republicans, and there was confusion about whether the boos when Perry spoke up for David Dewhurst, his choice for U.S. senator, were for Perry or for Dewhurst, or both. But Perry’s statement that he did not intend to ride off into the sunset was a warning shot across the bows of the wannabes, most prominent among them Greg Abbott.
It is still unclear (as it has been since he left the presidential race) whether Perry is just trying to find a way to remain relevant, or if he has any kind of plan other than his expressed interest in running for president in 2016.
(2) The second most important takeaway from the Republican convention is that the platform seeks to change the way the speaker is selected. The platform urges that the pledge card system, in use since at least the 1960s, be scrapped. Lawmakers give speaker candidates a leg up on the next election by signing pledge cards to signify that they will support a particular speaker candidate–usually the incumbent–in the next session. Obviously, the greatest beneficiary of this system is the incumbent speaker, who discovers who is for him and who is not (although any speaker worth his salt already knows). The platform would further urge that the speaker be elected by a secret ballot, thus making it less likely that a victorious speaker candidate can rain retribution on a member through punitive committee assignments. Next, the platform calls on lawmakers to do away with the pledge card system in which lawmakers swear fealty to an incumbent speaker in exchange for presumed favors to be granted at some future time. Finally, it urges Republican legislators to vote for speaker in caucus by secret ballot to protect members on the losing side. Note that this system applies to Republican members only. In 2011, the Republican members did vote for speaker, in a closed-door meeting, but the rules called for members opposing Joe Straus, the incumbent speaker, to stand if they were opposed to giving him another term. Obviously, this process was not akin to a secret ballot.
Readers with long memories will recall that the means of choosing a speaker was debated in the days leading up to the Eighty-first Legislature. The key issue was an amendment by Geren for a secret ballot on the choice of speaker. But the vote on the Geren amendment had to be public, and the incumbent speaker, Tom Craddick, had enough votes to prevail. I stress again that any speaker worth his salt does not need a vote to know who is for him and who isn’t.
Typically, a speaker’s race is decided when a candidate lays out his or her votes and the number is greater than 76. This was not the case in the Eighty-first Legislature, when election day passed without Craddick, the incumbent, laying out his votes. Craddick twisted in the wind during the weeks between election day and the convening of the Eighty-second Legislature, and when it became clear that he did not have the votes, he relinquished the chair.
It is inevitable in the age of the social media and the 24-hour news cycle that old forms of politics are going to give way to new ones. Members of the public are going to claim their right to be involved in the selection of the speaker, although ultimately their only tool is to persuade members how they should vote, and if what occurred in the weeks leading up to the Eighty-second session, that persuasion is likely to be none too polite.
In the end, the choice of the speaker will be made by the members, not by the public. The process may be different, but the outcome is likely to be the same as it was in the days when pledge cards were the deciding factor. The point is–let me repeat–any speaker worth his salt doesn’t need a pledge card, or the absence of one, to know who is for him or who is against him. Every speaker has a “team.” The speaker knows who is on his team. Bryan Hughes is challenging Straus for speaker (and other candidates may arise), but Straus knew long before Hughes announced his intentions that Hughes was against him.
The desire to be on the “team” is sewn into human nature. People want to be on the team because they want to get things done, or because they share a point of view with other members of the team, or just because it is natural to want to be on the prevailing side.
That will be true in the next speaker’s race, and in the one after that, and in the one after that. The members who are on the outside can do nothing to change their status. This is how politics works.
The likelihood is that, when all the ballots have been counted on election day, Joe Straus will have enough support to be elected speaker. He will have most of the Republicans and many of the Democrats, who have no one else to turn to, short of making a Faustian bargain with the Republicans. (A number of Democrats made such a bargain with Craddick, and they prospered for awhile, but in the end they had to rejoin the Democratic ranks or face defeat. It could happen again.)
The pledge card system, which has lasted half a century, will not last forever. Nothing does. The most ideological Republicans want to change the system so that it benefits Republicans and only Republicans–and in particular, not the elected class, but the agitators and the pressure groups who want to bully politicians into doing their dirty work. A lot of people believe, as I do, that Texas politics is headed on a course that will inevitably result in the replication here of the way Washington works, where the majority party controls everything. I hope it doesn’t happen, but if it does, remember, politics never stands still.
Tagged: gop convention, Joe Straus, rick perry, speaker's race
Cincinnatus says:
So let me get this straight: The Texas GOP wants Texas to do things the way they are done in Washington, D.C.?!?
Get a rope!
Reply »
Willie James Reply:
June 13th, 2012 at 2:30 pm
Paul is dead solid perfect on this one.
Reply »
Distinguished Gentleman says:
There should also be term limits on how long one House member may “serve” as the body’s Speaker.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
June 13th, 2012 at 4:11 pm
That is not your decision to make, its the members of the House.
Reply »
Distinguished Gentleman Reply:
June 13th, 2012 at 4:16 pm
I never said that it was MY decision to make. I hope that the House WILL impose reasonable term limits on the position of Speaker.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
June 14th, 2012 at 10:49 am
Like they did to Craddick?
Distinguished Gentleman Reply:
June 14th, 2012 at 10:59 am
Craddick was a very extreme example.
The contemporary pattern of ten years was set by Gib Lewis, and reinforced by Pete Laney.
A decade is too long. Ideally, a House member should be limited to no more than three terms as Speaker which would be six years.
Blue Dogs Reply:
June 16th, 2012 at 11:51 am
Was the term limits platform about Speaker Straus, Gov. Perry or both ?
I still prefer TWELVE YEARS (12) with a 4-year sitting out period (see Edwin Edwards, George Wallace, etc)
Just another Joe says:
Only you, Paul, would push this platform item as a big takeaway. And I do sincerely mean that cause I didn’t even know this was in the platform until you brought it up. I guess you are more insightful than the other major publications in this state who labeled the big platform takeaway as the embracing of a guest worker program.
Do you sincerely think that this speakers race bit is a bigger deal than the grassroots saying yes to a guest worker program (If so, dare I say that you would stand alone)? Or are you instead trying to use your medium to further play up this image (partly – just partly – false) that the republican base is out of control? Seems to me that they proved with this convention that they are more reasonable than perceived.
But you wouldn’t know that by stopping by here.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
June 13th, 2012 at 3:26 pm
Really? I don’t think he is pushing it, He is saying these two key items were overlooked.
Reply »
Just Another Joe Reply:
June 13th, 2012 at 5:12 pm
Yes. Really. There is a big difference between “takeaways” and something “overlooked”.
Furthermore, what new information did we learn from this speakers race platform? Nothing. Where the grassroots stood on the matter was already well documented. This is nothing new. No news here, which is probably why no one else is talking about it, except for Paul.
Finally, this speakers race bit has no long term implications. The Members will do with it as they rightfully should…which is to ignore it. But the guest worker program…that may actually have long term implications. It could be the first step in the right direction for the Republican Party. Well, actually the second. With Leo Berman’s pink slip being the first.
Paul is doing with this as Paul always does. Taking something either factually incorrect or otherwise obscure and molding it to fit the agenda he tries to sell. Paul is no journalist (evident by every other journalist in the state treating this speakers race platform in the appropriate manner). He is a used car salesman trying to convince you that this ’92 Ford Probe with 130,000 miles is a steal.
Reply »
Jerry Only Reply:
June 13th, 2012 at 10:54 pm
a 20 year old car with only 130k miles on it might be a pretty good deal……
Robert says:
“the way Washington works, where the majority party controls everything.” Huh? When did it not work that way? I well remember full Democrat control and that’s what it was, Democrat control.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
June 13th, 2012 at 4:15 pm
Yes, but the Ds appointed Rs to portioned chairmanships in Texas. Washington is one party all the way.
Reply »
Wait a Minute says:
I wonder if all the GOP party hardliners like Dan Patrick will also want this “secret” ballot approach should there also have to be a vote for a new Presiding Senate Officer (should Dewhurst resign).
I bet not.
Reply »
Distinguished Gentleman says:
I seem to recall, Wait a Minute, that in fact it WAS done by secret ballot when Ratliff was chosen as the Senate’s presiding officer for a temporary time.
Reply »
Gen. Sam Houston says:
Patrick will likely not want a secret ballot on the state Senate floor. In fact, he’ll probably push for publicly binding all GOP senators to a Lt. Governor vote to be held by the Senate Republicans only. His goal will be to prevent another situation where the Lt.Gov is elected by Democrats and a handful of Republicans.
Reply »
Whoa Nellie! Reply:
June 14th, 2012 at 11:30 am
What the heck is this about? The Lt. Gov. is elected by all Texas voters on the usual general election ballot.
Reply »
Distinguished Gentleman Reply:
June 15th, 2012 at 10:54 am
Whoa Nellie, not when a temporary vacancy is being filled until such time as the next general election. For such a temporary vacancy, the Texas Constitution contains provisions for the Senate, as a body, to choose one of its members to serve temporarily as Lieutenant Governor.
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
June 16th, 2012 at 11:32 am
What if Dewhurst loses the runoff ? you know he’s going to be PISSED OFF.
anita says:
Paul, it also requires that they vote as a block, in a unified fashion once the caucus makes a decision
Reply »
Paul Burka Reply:
June 13th, 2012 at 11:13 pm
As I assume most readers know, the platform change for the speakers’ race has been the agenda for Michael Quinn Sullivan for the better part of two sessions now, and that includes the tea parties and other outside groups who seek to play in speakers’ races. Anyone who thinks that the choice of a presiding officer, and the means used to make that choice is not a big deal, is simply trying to downplay something that anyone has been around since the fall of Tom Craddick knows, which is that ideological Republicans want to dictate and control the method by which the speaker is chosen.
Reply »
anita says:
You missed this gem, buried somewhere between their disdain for the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and their strong support for plaques honoring the Confederacy to be returned to state buildings:
Incandescent Light Bulbs – We support the freedom to continue to use and manufacture incandescent light bulbs.
Reply »
Willie James Reply:
June 14th, 2012 at 11:05 am
Dim bulbs need to buy bright bulbs?
Reply »
Whoa Nellie! Reply:
June 14th, 2012 at 11:31 am
Finally something the Repubs have done that I can support!
Reply »
Distinguished Gentleman says:
I was delighted to see that the plank on term limits was restored to the Texas GOP platform after having gone missing in 2010, supposedly at the behest that year of the now-ousted Wayne Christian.
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
June 16th, 2012 at 11:33 am
Distinguished, that will NEVER, NEVER happen.
Houston city councilmembers Wanda Adams and Andrew Burks are proposing alternatives to extend the mayor’s term from 2 years to 4 years.
Reply »
Distinguished Gentleman Reply:
June 18th, 2012 at 9:27 am
Blue Dogs, that would constitute term-lengthening.
The City of Houston’s over-all term limits would still apply to the position of Mayor.
Reply »
anita says:
Whoa, how about this one:
Protection of Traditional Travel — We strongly support the restoration of the domestic horse and buggy as the primary form of travel for Texans.
Reply »
Where are you seeing that? Reply:
June 13th, 2012 at 3:49 pm
Cute, Anita.
Reply »
anita Reply:
June 13th, 2012 at 4:46 pm
Ok, you got me — that was a joke. But seriously, take some time reading the platform and it becomes very clear that the Republican base literally wants to turn the clock back. The document is a screed that offers no positive agenda — it’s a litany of items and issues R’s oppose.
I think most Texans are concerned with where we’re heading, not where we’ve been — and certainly not an ode to centuries past.
Reply »
Whoa Nellie! Reply:
June 14th, 2012 at 11:32 am
I’d get behind that idea and push!
Reply »
Anonymous says:
MISSED IN BURKA’S TAKEAWAY ON THE GOP PLATFORM:
It’s now okay to be a “top” in a homosexual relationship; a “bottom” is still considered unacceptable and medically disqualifies one from being Republican.
Reply »
Where are you seeing that? says:
Anonymous at 3:26 p.m., where are you seeing that in the Texas Republican Party’s platform? Please be so kind as to cite page number, etc.
Reply »
Joto Reply:
June 13th, 2012 at 6:35 pm
In Latin America pitchers are not gay. Only catchers.
Reply »
Bill Reply:
June 13th, 2012 at 10:29 pm
Page 69.
Reply »
WUSRPH says:
Too bad the GOP left out of their platform a demand for the return of the old days when members of “The Team” wore “team ties” letting you immediately know who was on or off the team. I remember an old story about Jimmy D. Cole, I think it was, back when Byron Tunnell was Speaker when the team tie was a solid black tie…just like the Mafia. The story goes that Cole, if that was he, announced that he was getting off the team by coming onto the House Floor wearing a solid WHITE tie. One of the last speakers to have team ties was Price Daniel…But he was cheap…He used the Southwestern Bell Telephone area code tie. When Carl Parker unsuccessfully ran for speaker, he had a beautiful blue tie with an American eagle on it. I still have both a Daniel and Parker tie in my collection. Billy Clayton who beat Parker for speaker did not have a tie…You could tell who was on his team by seeing which members were wearing polyester pants suits.
Reply »
WUSRPH says:
If I am going to bore you with old stories, here’s one more: The story goes that some years ago at a meeting of the U.S. House Republican Caucus one member looked over and saw that the representative sitting next to him was wearing a brown suit, brown shoes, brown socks, a brown shirt and a brown tie. So, he reached over, tapped the other guy on the shoulder, and said: “I didn’t know we were supposed to come in uniform”. (If you understand this one you were either a history major in college or you are old.) P.S. Someone should start a contest to design a team tie for Straus and Hughes. Maybe the Eagle Forum can sponsor it.)
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
June 13th, 2012 at 7:27 pm
Team Hughes will be the brownshirts
Reply »
WUSRPH Reply:
June 14th, 2012 at 12:13 am
Please no bad jokes about the Straus tie being a RINO’s rear end on a blue field…Are Hughes adopting those fancy hats the Italian Facists used to wear with those long plums of feathers or any of that stuff,
Reply »
Whoa Nellie! Reply:
June 14th, 2012 at 11:35 am
Actually, the black rooster feathers worn on the hats of certain Italian military units is the mark of a Bersaglieri (rifles) unit, an elite within the Italian army. Nothing to do with the black shirts or plain black fatigue caps of the Italian Fascist Militia, which was the ideological branch (similar to the role of the SS in the German army).
Reply »
No Le Hace says:
Speaker Lewis had a gavel lapel pin for his team members. There isn’t anyone who really believes Hughes will be Speaker, most think he’s doing a Paxton, get name out and then run for Senate if Eltife becomes Lt. Gov. The Speaker lost some Chairs but the true leadership of his team is back. Geren, Cook, Keffer,Pitts, Branch etc…vs Riddle, Laughenberg., Flynn etc.
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
June 16th, 2012 at 11:52 am
Who is Eltife ?
Reply »
Distinguished Gentleman Reply:
June 18th, 2012 at 9:28 am
Blue Dogs, Eltife is a State Senator who has been serving in the body since 2004.
Reply »
Oilers fan says:
I agree that Hughes will certainly not be speaker, but I don’t think he’ll be a senator anytime soon either. If Dewhurst leaves office to go to DC, I believe his replacement (a senator selected by fellow senators) remains a senator while serving out the rest of Dewhurst’s term (ie. two years).
Reply »
Anonymous says:
You have made no point whatsoever. Will Eltife run after being elected Lt. Guv? Most say he won’t. And we know he won’t run in 2014, so again..what’s your point?
Reply »
Paul Burka says:
Just to address the point about the guest workers’ program, I’m for it; I think it’s a great idea, long overdue; and I hope something like it is enacted by he 83rd Legislature. It could have far-reaching implications, which I hope come to pass. I’m not surprised that when the time came to address the issue, it was the Republicans who seized the moment, not the Democrats. I’m not going to get into an angels dancing on the head of a pin argument over which platform plank was more significant.
Reply »
Just Another Joe Reply:
June 14th, 2012 at 10:23 am
Legit question for you, Paul. Assuming that the 83rd did pass a guest worker program, is there reason to think that the feds would let it go? Or would you expect them to shoot it down under the argument that no individual state has jurisdictional authority in the matter?
Obama (assuming he is still the President) would be in a very interesting position were Texas to act. His choice would be to either shoot it down and anger hispanics and his base that believes that most non-citizens are mistreated in this country (an argument I can see some merit in), or let it go and let a red state be the first governmental body to formally extend an olive branch.
What do you think would happen?
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
June 15th, 2012 at 6:07 am
I’m for the guest worker program too, as long as it isn’t for the other three groups, the drug deals, the terrorists and the illegal who comes here to work and sends money home.
The most overused visa program is the student visa. So another federal program is never the answer. How about we enforce the existing laws now this might be a novel concept to most here.
I got behind another vistor yesterday who had a lonestar card, couldn’t speak english and the employee had to show her how to use the card.
Reply »
WUSRPH says:
How can the Legisalture set up a program that allows ailens without the necessary permits from the federal govt. to work here into the country?
Wouldn’t that turn the State of Texas into some sort of “coyote” for illegals? It would involve the state in a lot of “wink, wink…I don’t really see them there.”
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
dems now have platform envy?
Reply »
100 Year Decision Reply:
June 14th, 2012 at 11:08 am
I seriously doubt that JBB. The GOP platform is actually funny.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
June 14th, 2012 at 11:40 am
only for those who cannot understand it
Reply »
100 Year Decision Reply:
June 14th, 2012 at 4:42 pm
Right, I never could keep up with a scholar like you, pal!
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
June 15th, 2012 at 6:08 am
you think you’re the first who couldn’t?
That guy says:
Regarding the immigration plank: how will the “clarification” of US citizenship under Section 1 of the 14th Amendment be perceived?
Unless I’m reading it wrong, you can’t be an American citizen unless you were born one?!
I’m as dyed in the wool conservative as any of the other delegates but this just strikes me as a terrible mistake for Republicans.
Mark this post for two years from now and in the meantime, keep an eye on what comes out of Tampa.
God help my party if it says carte blanche that immigrants cant be (aren’t?) American citizens.
Reply »
WUSRPH Reply:
June 14th, 2012 at 6:04 pm
They better watch out or they will raise real questions about whether Mitt’s daddy was a U.S. Citizen…since he was born in Mexico and his parents did not intend to return to the U.S. until forced to do so by the Mexican Revolution..If he wasn’t a U.S. Citizen, and they change the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to only kids of citizens are citizens…Mitt would be an alien too.
Reply »
Robert Morrow Reply:
June 15th, 2012 at 9:32 am
Mitt Romney is an anchor baby.
Reply »
Whoa Nellie! says:
“the majority party controls everything”
This statement puzzles me; Did Mr. Burka really intend to write that? Because the Texas I live in has been run exactly that way for at least the past ten years, if not longer. And even before the Republicans seized near-absolute power (esp. given King Rick’s ability to pack all the appointed positions in the state with his cronies and allies), the conservative democrats ran things their own way. At least back then, Austin wasn’t continually gerrymandered into tinier and tinier pieces.
Reply »
FLPD says:
Is the state on the hook to pay for Perry’s travel and security detail when he goes to Missouri June 29 to campaign for Republican Ed Martin against Republican Adam Lee Warren for Missouri attorney general? I mean, this is a state primary contest in which polls say Perry’s pick (Martin) is already a shoe-in. Are we really obligated to pay for any trip any where any time just because you crave the limelight? There ought to be a law that says if you’re campaigning out-of-state you must pay for your expenses with campaign funds–security included.
Reply »
Robert Morrow Reply:
June 15th, 2012 at 12:31 pm
Rick Perry has a bloated security entourage. He should have at most 2 state troopers, perhaps just one travel with him.
Perry likes the trappings of power, all the cute men with earplugs running around him; the big house in Westlake when he could have had a much cheaper condo downtown.
I could go own, but Perry has a “Queen Bee” complex.
Reply »
Distinguished Gentleman Reply:
June 15th, 2012 at 2:52 pm
We must rid ourselves of this, and other, Queen Bees through strict term limits of no greater than 12 years holding one particular elective office.
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
June 16th, 2012 at 11:53 am
If Perry dies in office, the acting LG (likely since the Dew is going to the US Senate), will become governor, finish out the remainder of the term and win 3 full terms on their own.
Distinguished Gentleman Reply:
June 18th, 2012 at 9:30 am
As long as it does not exceed 12 years, Blue Dogs, I have no objection to it.
JohnBernardBooks says:
You can’t out giveaway the giveaway kings. The republican party does a new plank on the guest worker program and President Obama ignores fed law and gives amnesty.
Reply »
FLPD Reply:
June 15th, 2012 at 2:40 pm
Mr. Expert Conservative JBB, I ask again if Texas taxpayers should cover ANY of Perry’s travel & security expenses to campaign in Missouri in a Republican primary contest for attorney general?
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
June 15th, 2012 at 3:52 pm
sure he’s entitled to 138 campaign events at tax payer’s exp just like President Obama.
Reply »
FLPD Reply:
June 15th, 2012 at 4:55 pm
You win, JBB. I don’t have a comeback for someone who thinks the governor is on par with the President.
Anonymous Reply:
June 16th, 2012 at 1:56 pm
security goes everywhere as a matter of policy. They did the same for ann richards whether she was campaigning or on official business or goin to whole foods. EVERYWHERE.
The question is not whether taxpayers pay for Perry’s security regardless of the occassion, because they do that for every governor. The question is who pays or the governor’s plane, accomodations and that of staff. And overwhelmingly, Perry has paid for these things with other sources than tax dollars — moreso than his predecessors.
Reply »
FLPD Reply:
June 16th, 2012 at 5:04 pm
Sure, security is going to follow Texas governors wherever they go no matter which political party they belong to. Agreed. But, I personally think Democratic and Republican governors of Texas ought to reimburse the taxpayers for security costs when they choose to go campaign out-of-state–in this case for a candidate in a Republican primary for attorney general of Missouri.
Now, you claim to have some factual knowledge about how Perry pays for this out-of-state travel. That’s information I haven’t found. Please provide the proof. Who’s paying & how much has he spent since he stopped running for president?
JohnBernardBooks says:
I don’t what to say I was under the impression they were both elected officials. Did you think President was royalty?
Reply »
anita says:
“If you say that we should not [address] children who have come into our state for no other reason than they have been brought there by no fault of their own, I don’t think you have a heart.”
Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, September 2011.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
Guv Perry was telling the nation about why Texas has tuition for illegal’s kids that were born here, a law perpetrated on Texans by democrats. President Amature just instructed homeland security to ignore our laws.
Do democrats support the selective enforcement of our lawsby this admin?
November is gonna be bad for dems.
Reply »
anita Reply:
June 16th, 2012 at 11:52 am
With all due respect, JBB — Perry wholeheartedly embraced the tuition bill. Not only did he not veto or block it, he considered it a major accomplishment and touted it in his campaign for reelection as Governor against Bill White.
President Obama has not ignored any laws — what he has proposed is entirely within his powers to do.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
June 16th, 2012 at 7:42 pm
“President Obama hasn’t ignored any laws”
so I have this land in Fla….no really irs not swamp…really….
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
June 16th, 2012 at 11:55 am
JBB, I’m a moderate Dem and I didn’t vote for Obama in 2008 and likely voting for Romney, so I have the Dems losing 5-6 US Senate seats and 4 governorships in NC, NH, MT, and WA.
Reply »
anon says:
It’s incongruent with being a person of integrity and principle to make a statement like Perry made above — and then taking it back when you find it politically damaging.
In Rick Perry’s heart, even he knows the President did the right thing. It’s a shame he doesn’t have the integrity or principles to admit it.
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
June 16th, 2012 at 11:53 am
Perry’s political future tanked once he flubbed the 3 federal agency question last year and everyone KNOWS he will not run again in 2014, so what’s the point ?
Reply »
anita Reply:
June 16th, 2012 at 3:58 pm
I’m not sure Perry knows this.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
PREDICTION: DEWHURST LOSES THE SENATE RACE next month..comes home and declares he will not let another unconstitutional piece of crap immigration bill see the light of day as Lt.Guv; appoints Wentworth to Chair of State Affairs; invites Tim Dunn over for dinner and punches him in the face while calling him an “anti-semitic waste of space and money” and holds Rick Perry’s head down in a toilet while Bill Powers gives Perry a swirley.
Any takers?
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
June 16th, 2012 at 7:44 pm
Where’s Morroq when you need him?
Reply »
anon Reply:
June 17th, 2012 at 3:49 pm
Sure, Dewhurst will lose — and when he does, I hope he’ll remember all the things he did to cater to the right wing of his party that were horrible for Texas. The massive cuts to education, the ridiculous political witch hunt that killed the women’s health program, etc. He and Perry sold Texas down the river, and look what it got them.
It’s embarrassing to watch the Dew now resort to trying to label Cruz as a supporter of amnesty — he raises the issue of the “Hispanic” organizations Cruz belongs to as a dog-whistle call to the bigots in the party, pandering to the fear of having “one of them” in a position of power. It’s sleazy. We’ll see if it works.
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
June 18th, 2012 at 12:12 pm
I still think Dewhurst will win the Senate race on July 31st when all is said and done.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
Rush was right when he said maybe the best thing is to let progressives elect Obama.
With President Amateur by passing Congress and giving amnesty to illegals, out of control spending and blatant selective enforcement of US laws, democrats will go at least 20 years without winning a federal election.
Reply »
Kenneth D. Franks says:
Spending, federal spending is down, not up. It was not amnesty Obama ordered but a change in priorities to put immigration emphasis on the people that really need to be deported or imprisoned instead of high achieving graduating high school and college graduates that were brought here as children. Your other points aren’t worth addressing.
Reply »
anita Reply:
June 17th, 2012 at 3:53 pm
None of his points are worth addressing.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
June 17th, 2012 at 5:10 pm
nothing to see move along….look a shiney object.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
dems finally have something to celebrate as President Amature played his 100th rd of golf since being elected king.
Reply »
I'm Pavlov. Ring a Bell? says:
June 17th, 2012 at 10:28 am
Kenneth D. Franks says:
“Spending, federal spending is down, not up.”
Haha, I almost spit out my cheerios at this ridiculous statement. Here’s what the CBO says:
“Over the past few years, the federal government has been recording budget deficits that are the largest as a share of the economy since 1945.”
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43288
Reply »
Col. Mike Kirby says:
you can thank your BFF bush for that. Federal spending under Obama is the lowest in 50 years.
Reply »
BaylorHeel says:
C’mon Col. Kirby, did you really think federal spending is actually lower now than it was in 1962? I think you mean the rate of increase in spending, but even that wouldn’t be true.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-facts-about-the-growth-of-spending-under-obama/2012/05/24/gJQAIJh6nU_blog.html?wprss=rss_fact-checker
The facts are that federal spending as a percentage of our GDP is higher now than it has been at any point post WW2.
Reply »
MikeO says:
“not the elected class, but the agitators and the pressure groups who want to bully politicians into doing their dirty work.”
Translation: Not the good ol’ boys cutting deals in the back rooms and intimidating the opposition, but the actual activist constituency will have some say in the legislative leadership. Perish the thought!
BTW: did you notice the the GOP platform calls for a secret ballot on the Speaker’s race in caucus? Kind of makes it difficult to bludgeon reps on committee assignments when you don’t know how they voted.
Reply »
Robert Morrow says:
Here is a good article on Watergate: “Hougan, Liddy, the Post and Watergate”
http://jimhougan.com/wordpress/?p=11
The burglars were looking for information on a Washington, DC call girl ring. John Dean married a girlfriend of his Maureen, who almost certainly had been working as a prostitute.
A wife cannot legally be forced to testify against her husband.
There was a call girl ring being run by one of the secretaries at the DNC.
F”ortunately, we know today what the Senate Watergate Committee did not: that Detective Shoffler wrested the key from one of the burglars. (According to Shoffler, Eugenio Martinez was so determined that the key should not be found, he attempted to get rid of it and may even have tried to swallow it.) As much as a confession, that key is prima facie evidence of the break-in’s purpose. Clearly, the burglars were after the contents of whatever it was that the key unlocked.
The FBI seems to have understood this because the Bureau’s agents went from office to office after the arrests, trying the key on every desk until they found the one that it fit. This was Maxie Wells’s desk, and Shoffler, for one, wasn’t surprised. When he took the key from Martinez, Shoffler said, photographic equipment was clamped to the top of that same desk.
But what was in it? What did the burglars hope to find?
It was precisely this question that was so embarrassing to Wells. In her suit against Liddy, she sought to suppress discussion of the key because, she insisted, it unfairly implicated her in allegations about a call-girl ring.
A call-girl ring?
Well, yes. Although the Post prefers to ignore any and all evidence on the matter, links between call-girls and the DNC—and, therefore, between call-girls and the Watergate affair—have been rumored or alleged for years. The connection first surfaced in a book by a Pulitzer prize-winning New York Times reporter, J. Anthony Lukas. According to Lukas, secretaries at the DNC used a telephone in the office of Wells’s boss, Spencer Oliver, Jr., to make private calls. They did this because Oliver’s office was often empty—he traveled a lot—and his telephone was thought to be among the most private in the Democrats’ headquarters.[J. Anthony Lukas, Nightmare, Viking (1976), p. 201.] (In fact, Oliver had two phones, one of which was a private line that did not go through the DNC switchboard.)
“They would say, ‘We can talk; I’m on Spencer Oliver’s phone,’” Lukas wrote. Quoting Alfred Baldwin, who eavesdropped on these conversations at the direction of James McCord, Lukas reported that “Some of the conversations were ‘explicitly intimate.’” Baldwin was even more specific in a deposition that he later gave. According to the former FBI agent, many of the telephone conversations involved dinner arrangements with “sex to follow.” And while he never heard “prices” being discussed, Baldwin testified, he guessed that “eight out of ten” people would have thought the calls involved prostitution.
But he himself did not. As former FBI agent, Baldwin knew that for prostitution to occur, there has to be a promise of money. But money was never discussed, he said, or at least not in his hearing. And since McCord told him that he was eavesdropping on telephone conversations emanating from the DNC, Baldwin assumed that the women must be amateurs. As incredible as it seems, it did not occur to him that McCord might have lied to him about the bug’s location. To Baldwin, it was entirely plausible, or at least possible, that one secretary after another would go to a private telephone to engage her boyfriend in a conversation that was “extremely personal, intimate, and potentially embarrassing.”[Nomination of Earl J. Silbert to be United States Attorney, Hearings before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 93d Cong., 2d sess., Part I, April-May, 1974, p. 52.] The more sophisticated Anthony Lukas was skeptical of the idea. As he reported, “So spicy were some of the conversations on the phone that they have given rise to unconfirmed reports that the telephone was being used for some sort of call-girl service catering to congressmen and other prominent Washingtonians.” [Lukas, Nightmare, p. 201.]
The same rumors were overheard by others, including the DNC’s Robert Strauss. In a 1996 deposition, Strauss testified that he recalled stories about “some of the state chairmen (who) would come into (Oliver’s) office and use the phone to make dates…” Strauss added that “in connection with the use of the telephones, some of the calls…could have been embarrassing to some of the people who made them.”
The DNC’s Treasurer was even more specific in an interview with Fox News correspondent, James Rosen. As Rosen has testified, Strauss told him that “Democrats in from out of town for a night would want to be entertained… ‘It wasn’t any organized thing, ‘but I could have made the call, that lady could have made the call’—the reference was to Maxie Wells—’and these people were willing to pay for sex.’ Those were his exact words.”[Testimony of Rosen in the first Wells v. Liddy trial.]
In an interview with Liddy’s attorneys, DNC secretary Barbara Kennedy Rhoden acknowledged that she, too, overheard such rumors. Asked if Rhoden had said “it was likely that Spencer Oliver and Maxie Wells were running a call-girl operation,” Rhoden replied: “I might have said that…” But, she added, “I have no knowledge that they were.”[Testimony of Barbara Kennedy Rhoden in the first Wells v. Liddy trial.]“
Reply »
Patrick Skinner says:
I prefer term limits for Congress – 2 terms max – one in DC, one in Prison – works pretty well in Illinois – they currently have 4 consecutive Governors in prison.
Reply »