Friday, September 28, 2007
Democracy rounded down
In Texas, we live in a Republic (twin Republics, actually) and this means that we, the people, hand over a portion of our personal power (rights and money) to that Republic, and in return, it provides more than we could have secured with what we had foregone. We are entrusting our representatives with ensuring that our taxes are worthwhile to us individually. Unfortunately, American party politics has a natural tendency toward the bicameral, and not just at the federal level. Politics, by its nature, is like a giant game of Red Rover, players on opposite ends of the same team having nothing in common; often the only relation of two opposites is for the common purpose of survival. People cannot vote their conscious, they are instead forced to vote for a handful of issues, or possibly even simply a party name and platform. How does someone whose two biggest personal issues cross platforms vote? They must eschew some of their political voice, and that silence is a terrible thing.
The scramble for political limelight does not serve the people of Texas, it serves the policymakers and those who pay for their agenda. Trickle down to the constituents and effective policy is a collateral concern in shortsighted party politics, and this shortsightedness comes from the limited terms that candidates endure. People are shortsighted - it’s part of their nature, that thing government is designed to overcome.
The incumbent in any local election has a huge advantage, usually for little more reason than name recognition at the polls and a favorable party name. This name recognition, more often than not, is due to extra-district campaign contribution. In the 2006 state election, a full third of the $158 million raised by all districts was from a list of 141 donors, and 40% of total contributions coming from organizations, not individuals. I simply don’t understand why we are allowed to vote twice, once with our wallet, and once at the polls, and why organizations, committees, and lobbies have such a huge say in our democracy.
Lobbying is often joked to be “legal bribery,” and it’s certainly not the fault of the lobbyists that what they are doing is essential graft - they’re behaving rationally and making a career of political maneuver just like anyone would. Unfortunately, we don’t live in Machiavellian Italy, and money and soft power should simply not be mixed with policy. In the endgame, a state income tax voluntary “political contribution pool,” as has been started with the Presidential elections, would be ideal.
Campaign finance reform has been a hot issue after recent national elections, but I hope we’ve just hit the tip of the iceberg. I hope that, with a progressive attitude (perhaps rebrand it as “down home know-how“ or something?), we can discover that laissez-faire fundraising hurts political competition more than it helps - I know Libertarians would hate to cross themselves in agreeing with that sentiment, but they won’t be able to find a toehold in Texas policy any other way.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Cracks at the Seam
Could the Republican dominance in
The good he says is the abandonment of the party by “rats and RINOs” or Republicans in Name Only. The result will be a more unified and common shared conservative message. Lately this hasn’t been the case with many Legislators wearing the Republican nametag knowing it will give them a better chance at winning office. The bad being the ever shrinking Republican voter base in
Mr. Murchison is absolutely right in his assumption that Republicans should be nervous of the ever growing Hispanic voter base, but the good he sees in the situation has me a little stumped. I get the feeling of a sort of cleansing of the more moderate Republicans to a more pure form of conservatism. This can not be good for the Republican Party in regards to how highly diverse
So what can the Republicans do? Well its obvious that they have to find a way to win Hispanic votes or else their reign in
http://www.easttexasreview.com/story.htm?StoryID=4871
"Grandma" Strayhorn to return in 2010?
"One Tough Grandma" Austin's Carole Keeton Strayhorn, former Texas state comptroller of public accounts should run again. Besides being a very interesting person and holding several official public titles, Strayhorn has switched parties not once but twice. Her change from democrat to republican in 1986 came when she was selected nominee for the U.S. House seat.
Strayhorn took great strides as the first woman mayor of Austin, elected 3 consecutive terms, first woman elected to the Texas Railroad Commission and the first woman elected as comptroller, also being the first female president of the Austin school board and president of our incredible Austin Community College board. Even though Strayhorn will always consider herself to be a republican she ran against GOP incumbent Rick Perry in 2006 as an independent. She lost the election and placed third in a five-way race.
With the current trend of independents in our nation to side with the democratic party, what will Strayhorn do next? Independents are shifting their loyalties and so many of them do not even vote. Opposition to the Iraq war and Bush's current strategies have started a real flux of voters crossing over into democratic territory.
Strayhorn's outgoing and charismatic personality, witty remarks, and charm have served her well so far. Her hardline attacks on Perry's republican party; Texas "hardball" style politics. She isn't afraid to stand up for herself and apparently feels there should be a strong separation of religion and state. How will the voters turn out for her in 2010? Perry's lavish government life will obviously anger voters enough to make a difference or a change in our next election. Independent or not can she conceivably make a marked difference to Texas voters that have voted republican for the last several years. Watch out for Carole Keeton Strayhorn in gubernatorial election 2010. Will she return as a republican?
More reading:
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/stories/490395.html
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/stories/444083.html
POSTED BY NOAH AT 11:14 PM 0 COMMENTS
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
State Rep. England maybe just tired of Red?
By Solman
Everybody’s talking about State Rep. Kirk
Look at the whole Craddick escapade, among other dramas this past session. It was messy, it was political, and it drove deep wedges into already prominent rifts within the republicans in the house. Rick Perry champions his office as if he makes no note of his narrow victory among the four candidates last election. The appeal of the George Bush “cowboy politics” model is fading, even here in
So why cant Kirk
There are a few voices making the same assessment as myself, but overwhelmingly the talk is about districts and votes and party lines. I don’t wish to place
http://www.star-telegram.com/arlington_news/story/242464.html
http://www.star-telegram.com/metro_news/story/246309.html
Monday, September 24, 2007
Libertarians say, "if you dont like the free speech change the channel"
People may think that things as small as a local public access show or even a local radio show do nothing to get a party moving in the big picture of a campaign, but I disagree. Grassroots efforts send a ripple in the collective unconscious of the people who make up a community. It gets people discussing the topics and the platforms of a campaign.
Personally, Neal Boortz on KLBJ is my favorite local Libertarian. I agree with him on just about everything, like today with his comments on whether Ahmadinejad should speak at Columbia University. I agreed, I also thought Ahmadinejad should be able to give his speech and answer questions. It reminded me of something that happened a while back at the University of Texas. Henry Kissinger was supposed to give a speech, but UT caved to protesters and cancelled it. I remember being really upset not because I just love Henry Kissinger, but because we still have free speech in this country. He should have been allowed to speak. I’m not stupid, I know about the whole war crimes issue with him so protests and information should be brought into the light, but cancelled speeches at our nation’s universities irk me. That is where the exchange of ideas should happen. If the minute men wanted to speak at UT I wouldn’t go hear them, but I wouldn’t hinder them from giving their opinion on immigration control.
Free speech is a right that is constantly being challenged. Right now in Paris Texas a blogger’s rights for anonymity are being challenged. On Friday, September 21, 2007 R.G. Ratcliffe, from the Houston Chronicle stated, “There is little case law in Texas or nationally to give judges a standard for when to expose anonymous postings on the Internet”. (http://www.statesman.com/search/content/news/stories/local/09/21/0921blogsuit.html) So I feel pretty safe giving my anonymous opinions about things at the present moment.