Sat August 16, 2014 7:39 am By Paul Burka

The indictment of Rick Perry turns Texas politics upside down. He can't be a serious presidential candidate when he is facing a potential jury trial. But it also has serious effects on the state party. An obvious issue is that Greg Abbott has previously ruled that the state could pay for Perry's defense. Does anyone think the Democrats are going to sit idly by and allow Perry to continue to spend large sums of money on his defense when he stands accused of breaking the law? Not a chance.

Read More
Fri August 15, 2014 6:36 pm By Paul Burka

UPDATE: I've included a link to the indictments at the bottom of this post.

Thought Texas politics couldn't get any weirder? A short time ago special prosecutor Michael McCrum announced that a grand jury had indicted Perry on two counts related to his veto of funds for the Public Integrity Unit: coercion of a public official and abuse of official capacity, both of which are felonies. Rosemary Lehmberg, the embattled Travis County district attorney who was involved in an embarrassing drunken driving case last year, argued that Perry's actions amounted to political retribution because her office, which receives state funding for the PIU, oversees that investigative unit. Perry countered that the veto was a result of the fact that Lehmberg had lost the public's confidence in her ability to do her job. The governor's office just released the following statement:

“The veto in question was made in accordance with the veto authority afforded to every governor under the Texas Constitution. We will continue to aggressively defend the governor's lawful and constitutional action, and believe we will ultimately prevail.”

Here is a copy of the indictment: http://www.scribd.com/doc/236934485/Texas-Gov-Rick-Perry-grand-jury-indi...

Read More
Fri August 15, 2014 1:42 pm By Paul Burka

I don't think Republicans recognize what is happening to their party in Texas. The GOP is verging on irrelevance. The failure of Texas to land the Republican national convention should have been a wake-up call for the state party. There was a reason why the Republicans chose Cleveland over Dallas: The national Republican party likes us for our money and for our electoral votes, but they don't really want to deal with us. The Republican platform was the final straw. No rational Republican leader would have chosen to put the convention in Dallas when the state party was calling for "reparative therapy."

Read More
Tue August 12, 2014 1:07 pm By Erica Grieder

I was inclined to think that the new Rasmussen poll showing Greg Abbott with a mere 8-point lead against Wendy Davis was an outlier until yesterday, when the campaign issued a statement dinging her as "out-of-touch with Texans" after the Houston Chronicle reported that in 2000, as a member of Fort Worth City Council, she had voted in favor of a resolution calling for a moratorium on the death penalty pending further study and possible changes. Today, Davis says that she supports capital punishment, and the Abbott campaign is suggesting that her previous support for the moratorium gives the lie to that. Her professed change of heart, the statement argues, is just a matter of political expediency, given that a whopping majority of Texans support the death penalty. Capital punishment is one of the relatively few policy areas where Texan public opinion is markedly more conservative than national attitudes. About three-quarters of Texans support the death penalty, as do about 60% of Texas Democrats, and, strikingly, 60% of African-Americans, a result that Rodger Jones puzzled over in the Dallas Morning News earlier this year.

Read More
Mon August 11, 2014 2:52 pm By Erica Grieder

On Friday, Wendy Davis released a 60 second TV ad--her first TV ad in this year's gubernatorial campaign, and the first campaign ad I can think of that's caused me to ask myself if this is the kind of situation where an outbound link should be accompanied by a "trigger warning." Trigger warning, just in case: the ad, which you can watch on YouTube, relates to a 1993 rape case, and includes a few moments of dramatic re-enactment. 

At issue is how Greg Abbott responded to the case in 1998, as a justice on the Texas Supreme Court. The rapist was a door-to-door vacuum cleaner salesman working for an independent contractor that distributed Kirby vacuum cleaners. The victim had sued Kirby for damages, arguing that Kirby had a responsibility to screen its salesman, but Kirby disavowed any liability, because the rapist was employed by the distributor, not by Kirby. Six of the justices agreed that the victim should have the right to sue Kirby itself. Abbott was among the three who dissented. (See Christy Hoppe at the Dallas Morning News and Gardner Selby at PolitiFact Texas for more details on the case itself.) 

I had a mixed reaction to this. As a moral question, of course Kirby had some responsibility in this situation. The fact that the company had shunted the business of actually selling the vacuum cleaners to independent contractors, and sought to wash its hands of any problems that might result from that model, makes them more culpable in that sense, not less. Legally, too, the Court's decision strikes me as the correct one. Abbott notes in his dissent that Kirby's contract with the distributor explicitly stated that Kirby wouldn't control the hiring. The majority opinion sticks closer to common sense: insofar as Kirby's business model was based on in-home sales of Kirby vacuum cleaners, Kirby had a "duty of reasonable care" to take some precautions against dispatching violent sexual predators into sedate suburban homes.

All of that being the case, I can see why Davis would cite Abbott's dissent as evidence supporting an argument that her opponent has, throughout his career, been systematically cavalier about consumer protections and public safety and overly lenient to monied interests. She's touched on that argument at previous points in the campaign, as in July, when the campaign cheerfully made hay over Abbott's inexplicable suggestion that Texans worried about where explosive chemicals are stored can "just drive around" their town and ask people. 

But that's not exactly what Davis is doing here, is it? The ad--its title, bizarrely, is "A Texas Story"--refers to that line of argument in its final frames, with a few words float up: "Another insider. Not working for you." But nothing in the ad establishes, or even suggests, that Abbott had any cronies or donors at Kirby. The implication of the ad, with its somber gray palette and stalker-cam angles, is that the attorney-general is some kind of rape apologist. "Thank God this time Greg Abbott lost," the narrator intones at the end, as the camera pans over a yard littered with symbols of shattered innocence (capsized tricycles). Yikes. I'm glad the woman was allowed to sue Kirby in the end, but "Thank God" makes it sound like Abbott wanted to give the rapist a pardon and a reference letter for a job as a high school volleyball coach. 

I can't shake the feeling, then, that this ad is sort of a seance intended to summon the ghost of Claytie Williams. It's not a foolproof strategy, for several reasons. Abbott is not Williams; the election is less than three months away; most polls show Abbott leading by double digits; Williams, come to think of it, is not dead. Still, at least it's a strategy, and whether Davis's ad is in good taste is a different question from whether the ad will be effective. On the latter front it may be more successful. Certainly it's received more attention than Abbott's first TV ad, which features a testimonial from his mother-in-law. 

Read More