National Public Air Pollution

In a recent segment of NPR’s all things considered John Burnett stated, “Texas is the country's largest emitter of global warming gases.” This came as a shock to me; I always assumed it was California. But the story was uplifting as it mentioned how the mayors in some of the State’s biggest cities are working together to change the mind of more high ranking officials. Burnett also mentioned how, “State Sen. Kirk Watson, a Democrat representing Austin, proposed a bill that would have merely set up a task force to study climate change. Though it passed the Senate, it died in the House.” I remember when that guy was mayor of Austin, so it’s nice to see that Green is moving up in the world.

Things move at a slower pace here in Texas then the rest of the country so the fact that we are still a bit behind on the environmental ball compared to the other 35 states that have climate action plans in place or under consideration is of no surprise to me. Especially when our own Governor, Rick Perry, mentioned recently, “that the largest source of carbon dioxide is Al Gore's mouth” it gives some of us a feeling of environmental unease. This state lives and breathes pollution, Gas guzzling trucks and Suv’s are the first thing that come to mind when you think about our highways. Not to mention all those pretty little twinkling lights that comes from oil refineries upon any number of great Texas cities.

The economy here is Texas is dependent upon those pollution causing companies and they are fighting environmental change every step of the way. With all the money in the corner of the Texas Oil and Gas Association, the Gulf Coast Lignite Coalition, the Texas Chemical Council and the Texas Automobile Dealers Association I’m sure the fight to get bills like the one Senator Watson would like to pass will be an uphill battle.

But we have some beautiful things on the horizon. With wind power in West Texas and Willie’s Bio Diesel maybe the, “out of the box” thinking of some whimsical locals will inspire more of us to do the right things and maybe make this state not look so bad. Burnett also statedthat on the bright side of things, “There are signs that that things are changing in Texas. Earlier this year, the state's largest utility, TXU, dropped plans to build eight coal-fired plants, in part, because of a popular uprising over their impact on air quality and the atmosphere.” So public opinion may actually cause change here in Texas.

None Of Your Business

A recent report found that the Texas based fortune 500 companies have donated twice as much to Republican candidates as they have to Democratic candidates so far in 2007. This really comes as no surprise and in fact it is actually an improvement for Democrats compared to past years. The report stated that 58 percent of Republican candidates campaign cash came from these 46 companies. If this isn’t factual proof that corporations have more power in government, and especially Texas government, than individuals, I don’t know what is.



The reason given for the mass support to Republican candidates is that they are pro-business and support the free enterprise system. Well, obviously Democrats are going to have a hard time being pro business when corporations have become their worst enemies and opponents larger than any Republican candidate. Many Democratic candidates have been pushed into a corner where they have to fend off big business to stay afloat. It is more apparent than ever that legislation needs to be passed that bans corporations from funding political campaigns. Through this mass overhaul of they way government is run, Democrats would no longer be forced into a position where they often need to hinder business to keep themselves from being run over, and rather they would be put into a position where they can in fact represent the desires of corporations. Conversely so, Republicans could represent the desires of individuals more than they have in years past, and we would move closer to a bi-partisan government.



We have become a state that is divided by political ideology in a way that supporting one sides preference means being at opposite ends with the other. We support a form of government that ideally corrects itself and balances out overtime, but it has come time to find a way to support a politics that is more balanced all of the time. Progress as a whole is close to impossible if support of one political party or side always means starting a fight with the other.



Legislation to ban corporations from financing campaigns would be seen as a partisan issue even though it could bring benefits to both sides of the political spectrum and better representation for every individual as a whole. Therefore, it will never fly unless Democrats gain a major majority in Texas. So I guess Democrats will have to stick to the political game of fighting off corporations and relying on major contributions from equally influential PACs, or supporting big business and starting a fire within their own party lines.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5328077.html

- Garrett

Huck, Chuck, and what the...

I'll be the first to admit I don't follow the race for the Republican ticket in '08, since it seems like kind of a lost cause. Mike Huckabee, apparently a very popular former Governor from Arkansas has teamed up with that powerhouse of kung fu and unwitting comedy, Chuck Norris, to form an unstoppable duo that will make every 18-35 year old male in the country groan. I first saw it posted on YouTube (the world's dry-erase board), but have recently seen mention in more respectable media (though the latter is technically a blog.)

First, watch the video. If you don't get it, you haven't missed much. I'll catch you up in the next paragraph. If you DO get it, you're probably really embarrassed, like when your parents try to use slang they hear in top 40 songs without realizing the sexual implications. Anyway, why would they do this to America? Does Huckabee really want to gamble his credibility by presenting himself as outright silly? Sure, Chuck does put in a good word, but the overwhelming focus is on the fact that Chuck Norris is even complicit in the political ad, and that he's awesome (which is arguable.) It seems Huckabee's campaign strung themselves between the college-age non-voters who would even understand the aim of the ads, and those who look to Norris as a cultural symbol.

Let me just go ahead and say it: this is a stupid ad. This isn't like Mike Gravel's genius ad, where you're not sure if it was a blooper, some kind of mistake, or the most postmodern political ad you've ever seen, this is pointedly, clearly tongue-in-cheek, winking-at-the-camera stupid, not to mention it doesn't work. First of all, let me explain Chuck Norris jokes, the crux of the ad's “comedy.” Chuck Norris is (ironically) considered on par with every divine figure and tall tale rolled into one, and this fact is played to jokes that involve how awesome he is, by reversing causality, anthropomorphization etc. Think of them as Yakov Smirnoff jokes, but an iota more sophisticated. The problem with putting Chuck Norris center stage of the ad is that these were funny about two years ago. Youth culture moves fast, and if you're going to get their attention you have to be timely. Most everyone I know groans at the mention of a Chuck Norris joke these days, much less a political figure co-opting him for comedic ends.

So how would this have been done more correctly? Well, I'd like the Republicans at large to try to make a more concerted effort at being timely. There are plenty of young conservatives out there, but those who identify as conservatives are usually politically aware enough to vote. Capturing the swing, untapped youths can easily be done with clear presentation of the ideology: not reactionism (I.e. Illegal immigrants get out) or radicalism (I.e. abolition of the IRS,) but clear and concise exploration of the cause and effect of conservative philosophy (lower taxes allows greater control over your own fortune, obligation bills like Medicare and Social Security affect taxpayers for generations), dressed in the motion, color, simplicity, and most of all irony that appeals to kids our age. The problem with the ChuckHuckFacts ad is that it dresses the irony, color, and motion that appeals to 18-35 year olds with a thin, transparent ideological veneer.

Thanks for reading Party Hoppin'! Last call, and you bums are out on the street!

Obama to Surpass Expectations

By Noah

At a recent political rally in Austin, Senator Obama said when he is the Democratic Party nominee, his opponent won’t be able to say he voted for the war because he opposed it. Obama criticized Clinton on her vote with the president on war powers and lobbyist ties. Obama has promised to end the war in Iraq and within 16 months bring all the troops home. He wants to continue the fighting against the al-Quida in Afghanistan. Obama has also promised to reform health care within his first term if elected. He slashed at Clinton for using the political strategy of “triangulation.” Now all three Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are so close at the polls it is hard to tell who will come out on top. Obama cites principles, not calculations and poll testing should be on the minds of Democrat contenders. Obama appears to be leading in Iowa with 30% of the poll’s vote.

The U.S. has formally announced a date for Mideast talks. The meetings begin Nov. 27th and the U.S. has invited 49 countries with key Israel and the Palestinians scheduled to attend the important Washington peace talks. Great news considering we have not reached serious peace negotiations with them for seven years. Bush will open the meeting with a speech from he, the Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Praying that Russia and Saudi Arabia attend, President Bush remarked at the importance the talks would hold if the key countries participated in the meetings. If all will attend then further negotiations will ensue providing the conference tackles the tough issues. (The Palestinian State and a Palestinian-Israeli peace resolution.) Good news concerning past reluctance.

Bush claims Hillary can be beaten at the races by a tough Republican candidate. He says Hillary will probably win the primary and be nominated, because she is experienced in politics and is not scared to play hardball against opponents. Bush has hailed her on occasions and believes she can understand the klieg lights and withstand pressures. Bush also feels she has the best national presence, which means Hillary will be able to raise the most money. Hillary feels this weird obsession with her that the GOP feels means that she is communicating effectively about the presidency. They must be onto Hillary. Better wait to see what Edwards and Richardson will do come horn blowing time.

What will the Republican Party do next now that the President is becoming increasingly more interested in involvement in this race? Will Mitt Romney stay on top of Giuliani, or will he pull forward as Governor Perry suspects? Chances are everyone might be surprised.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/5318529.html

POSTED BY NOAH AT 10:00 AM 0 COMMENTS

Wired Cash Cow

Democratic Judge Susan Chriss is doing something very unorthodox in the realm of judicial campaigning. Online campaign contributions have been on the rise for presidential campaigns but not so much for local and state wide campaigns for judges. She is the first of her kind to take advantage of the internet, drumming up money for her campaign. The Galveston Democrat is running for Place 8 on the Texas Supreme Court. The seat is currently held by Justice Phil Johnson, a Republican. As I have recently learned in my Texas government class most judges get most of their campaign contributions from either law firms of big corporations, usually in hopes of gaining favor in legal cases. Money most certainly corrupts the system we currently have in place. So if the common individual can step up to the plate and donate, grassroot campaigns like Susan Chriss’s may be the long awaited answer we Texans have needed to hear.

According to the Houston Chronicle’s main blog Texas Politics, “Criss, who said in a phone interview this afternoon she has already raised $5,000 through her web site, wants to use the money to buy statewide TV ads.” Television ads are the life’s blood of a campaign. If you don’t have money for the TV face time then you may as well just hang up your ten gallon now. The fact that it takes so much money to win a campaign in Texas is mind boggling. But according to a survey done by the league of women voters, “A statewide survey of judges by the League of Women Voters of Texas in 2001 disclosed that most judges surveyed preferred elections, but a majority believed elections should be nonpartisan. A substantial number agreed that they had been victims of negative and misleading campaign advertising. They disagreed that campaign contributions had an influence on judicial decisions. Over half opposed public financing of judicial elections in Texas.”

This statement seems almost contradictory to common sense, and not to mention what I’ve learned in class. According to statistics campaign contributions do affect the outcome of a case, take Texaco vs. Pennzoil for instance.It’s hard to wipe the slate clean, when doing so means having to bite the hand that feeds. Although I do find it funny that on Judge Chriss’s home site the first page that pops up is the contribution page. You have to actually click on another link on the page to get to her beliefs and politics.

Maybe the internet will be the answer to all our problems, the economic decline and the current recession we can all feel despite the fact that we never actually hear anyone talk about it. Watch dog websites will become more main-stream then news organizations owned by major corporations. And Judges will be able to earn money in a more honest way, if more eyes are watching then maybe the internet can keep em honest.

Ron Paul soon to be homeless? Not in our hearts.

Ron Paul, that paragon of traditional fiscal conservative values is apparently in danger of losing his seat as Galveston's congressman, but this doesn't mean much for his political career considering his track record.

If you haven't heard about Ron Paul by now, you probably don't spend enough time on the internet or on the road reading bumper stickers, where his few but very vocal supporters make themselves heard the most. He's considered a very fringe candidate, though many insist that he's exactly what the country needs. He votes based on fiscal policy alone, making him a bizarre relic of 19th century politics. Because of this, he probably will never gain enough mainstream support to actually be electable in his bid for the White House, but stands as a symbol, a boundary of fiscal conservatism rather than a practical politician. His approach to politics - completely eschewing social issues - is a brilliant strategy for breaching the battle lines between major political parties and fringe elements, in this case Libertarians, but this obviously comes at the expense of mainstream viability.

That's Paul's biggest problem: viability. And that's why his losing his Congressional seat would be hardly a loss for his overall political career. Dr. Paul (as his supporters LOVE to call him) has rooted out a niche as a bona fide celebrity not with his function as a congressman, but as a sentinel for political principles. His opponents smear him for voting against obviously humanitarian legislation, but his supporters love him for his conviction to longsightedness instead of compromise. This shedding of compromise is what keeps him unelectable, and would be the undoing of his Congressional seat, but the legitimacy that the seat grants him is, in my estimation, far outweighed by the legtimacy of his disturbingly impeccable voting history.

Why did Paul choose to run as Republican in '08? My belief is that Paul is using the Republican ticket for the publicity – running as an Independent (or moreso independent, with the little “i”) brings to bear a certain “tinfoil hat” element. His selecting the Republican ticket has catapult him into serious discussion, not as a viable contender, but as a man with popular policy ideas. My bet is that Paul will run as an independent in '12 as a hostage-situation issue vote draw (like Perot in the '92 election), forcing Republicans to reconsider their overall strategy or severely risk the 2012 presidency, which is these days based more on emotions (read: scare tactics and moral authority) rather than its fiscally traditional role concerning itself with the collective national pocketbook.

We're Gonna Have Fun, Fun, Fun

By Noah

Today Houston state Rep. Rick Noriega is traveling to Las Vegas as a guest of the Democratic National Committee to meet with the national party donors who are also attending the Nevada Democratic Party’s presidential debate, which started around 7:00 p.m. Central Time. Since the departure of millionaire attorney Mikal Watts from the 2008 race for U.S. Senate, Noriega is being treated by the national Democratic Party as the only hope of facing and defeating Senator John Cornyn in the 2008 election. Watts’ dropping out really impacted Noriega because the amount of money he could raise from individual donors was decreased dramatically. Watts had signed the special millionaire exemption from the campaign finance laws so he could personally fund his campaign. This dropped Noriega’s ability to raise 13,800 dollars from each donor for each election in the cycle to about 2,300 dollars a donor. Sort of a kick to the groin of poor Noriega whose campaign manager and consultant say he will need big money in this race where he compares himself to a David and Goliath.

As I said President Bush vetoed on Tuesday another spending bill for Democrats and set up a showdown with them screaming no funds for the war. That is if the president does not agree to pull out of Iraq. This 606 billion dollar spending bill to fund education, health and labor problems was vetoed from Bush on the grounds that it was too fatt and was larded pork. A few hours later Senate majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. Declared Bush would not get more money until he accepts the plan to withdraw all troops by the end of next year. The president picked apart the bill and found many faults, about 10 billion dollars worth he told the Congress now 22 billion dollars over the budget. Bush also chided leaders for failing to act on his energy plan.

U.S. House Rep. J. Dennis Hastert, who served as House speaker longer than any other Republican, said goodbye to his colleagues today and said that he will not complete his 11th term. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. and others attended his farewell speech and applauded the distinguished speaker. His resignation and departure early this year will trigger a special election in his strongly Republican Chicago area district. He will be missed by all and many.

With the primaries so close by I see so many candidates are becoming more accustomed to throwing mud and playing games with peoples’ minds. The races become tighter and stress and pressure increases and human nature and imperfections become apparent. That is the nature of the beast.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5305325.html

POSTED BY NOAH AT 9:57 PM 0 COMMENTS

Who Shot the Sheriff?

The campaign for Dallas County Sheriff is currently one of the most watched political races in the state. It seems odd that a race for Sheriff would be so widely captivating but the race has drawn the attention of the Texas Democratic Trust as a must win election. The current Democratic Sheriff Lupe Valdez won the office in 2004 giving Democrats a foot in the door of the Republican controlled county. In 2006, Democrats swept every countywide race in Dallas County shocking many, and placing Dallas County into Democratic control. This time around, the GOP is going to be energized and on the offense trying to regain some of what they lost in 2006.
In 2006, an estimated 40,000 would be voting Republicans stayed at home. This time around that number is likely to decrease, and the Democratic Trust fears its voters may stay at home instead. A sense of comfort is felt from many Democratic voters after their gains in 2006, and their energy at that time may not be matched in 2008. The 2006 election came at an ideal time for Democrats as opposition to the War in Iraq and President Bush was escalated, as well as scandals among the Republican party which gave many voters a sense of corruption within the GOP. The Republican Party is fielded by three strong candidates who are vying for the selection by the party in the upcoming primary. A win by the Republican Party in this election might just give them the leverage they need to take back control of the county in 2010.
It is extremely difficult to predict who has the upper hand in this campaign and who will come out on top in the end. On one hand you have a Hispanic population who is growing and their voting numbers are increasing by about 2 percent each election, and on the other you have a highly energized Republican party with a chip on their shoulder. Whereas it seems the Democrats have the edge in potential voting numbers in the county, realistically the Republican population is far more likely to show up to the polls, and that may be enough to grant them victory.
At the same time, the Republican Party in general has been losing popularity among the American people, and even those in Texas. Two Republican officials switched over to Democratic lines earlier this year and just recently their was a slew of Republican officials in Fort Bend County who resigned over disenchantment with the party. Most likely, it will end up being a race based on who can dig up the most dirt on the opposing candidate like many local races have been in Texas. Whereas the Republican Party is pressing hard, the Democratic Trust has found ways to win unlikely elections and has the backing of many Washington operatives and strategists, and most important of all, they have the finances. In that light I think Lupe Valdez will come out on top, but if she doesn’t it may bring the Democratic Trust back down to human status and give the Republicans a chance to redeem themselves.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/local/stories/DN-jeffers_14met.ART.State.Edition1.cf41e4.html

- Garrett

Obama LIVE @ The Backyard

Democratic Senator Barack Obama, is back in Austin this Saturday at the backyard. This is pretty appropriate since Obama is treated more like a rock star then a politician here in Austin. When I ask people why they like Obama the answers I get back are usually pretty lame. I for some reason am a bit unsettled about Obama, mostly because he is so ambiguous about his faith. In my heart I have always ideally wanted the president of the United States to be a sort of philosopher king. I want our leader to be more than just an executioner of a set of well planned policies, but someone who embodies the kind of person I can respect and look up to. I want the person I call president to have a strong character and even stronger convictions. So when the question of Obamas religious background comes up his answer bothers me. It makes me doubt his character and question the kind of person he is at the fiber of his integrity. Obama’s camp plays down the fact that he was raised a Muslim and this is something Camp Clinton has picked up on. There is nothing wrong with being a Muslim or even being a Christian Convert, but the down-playing of his religious background makes him seem almost ashamed of it.

This is the rub, and the main reason I don’t really trust the Obama camp. It would be nice to live in a world where men like Obama didn’t have to walk on Political eggshells because of their religious background. The whole country made such a big deal about Kennedy being a Catholic, but Kennedy didn’t shy away from that fact. He was very proud of his religious background and it made him a more respectable person in some people’s eyes. So what if I’m a Catholic was his attitude, he didn’t make excuses for it, and he certainly didn’t convert to Protestantism.

I went on to the Chicago tribune’s website where they have a pretty lengthy article answering any questions one may have about Obama’s religious background in his early life. However its his reasons for converting to Church of Christ that I would like to read about. His spiritual awakening makes me curious about him and it also makes me wonder why he switched over. Its a huge subject but one that get little press. So when he comes to town I hope he takes questions from the audiance. The ticket prices are at least afordable $15 for students. This Austin encore is guaranteed to be a big moral boost for Obama, the last time he was here it may have been the biggest political rally since Regan ran for re-election. For a Democrat to get that much love in Texas, it must feel pretty good.

According to the Houson Cronicle, "He is third among Democratic candidates in fundraising in Texas, with more than $2.1 million collected here. Hillary Clinton has raised more than $3 million in Texas and John Edwards more than $2.4 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks filings with the Federal Election Commission." This is a pretty big chunk of change so I hope he doesn't just make a pit stop. Its always such a bummer when the man of the hour only stays for 30 minutes.

Top Shelf

By Noah

As you may already know all sixteen amendments propositions will be added to the Texas State Constitution. The GOP is not worried about losing a state House seat even though prior to the runoff election Democrat attorney Dan R. Barrett had received 32% of Tuesday’s vote with his opponent Republican Mark Shelton at 23%. Excited to find out who will win? I am. The one that wins will take 76 year old state representative Ann Mowery’s place thru 2008. Mowery retired after 19 years of service in the conservative district. Mayor Bill White of Houston is re-elected by a landslide. Currently interesting news: Democrat White is considering running for governor in 2010. Proud mayor will serve next 2 years of his third term as a popular leader in a city with crime, drainage, and property tax problems. White has a good chance for bid if he can reduce taxes and cut fat.

The House has approved the 471 billion dollar defense budget. The Pentagon received a 40 billion dollar increase in budget. The bill passed 400-15 on Thursday, but does not include President Bush’s 196 billion dollar war money request for operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The bill however does include a 12 billion dollar infusion for the troops’ new bomb resistant vehicles. There is a House-Senate compromise on 12 appropriations bills for this budget year beginning October 1, that Bush will supposedly sign into law. The President promises to veto any Democrat-driven domestic program increases. The House will vote as early as Friday on legislation for spending as much as 50 billion dollars for the war with the clear intention that President Bush begins bringing troops home. This is only enough money for four months of the war and is significantly less than the president’s requested 196 billion dollars. The bill would require troop withdrawals to begin immediately up to ending combat by December 2008. Democrats are reported to be holding a shaky majority and will have much trouble overriding a Bush veto.

Congress has just overridden a Bush veto for the first time though on Tuesday. The 23 billion dollar water resources bill was enacted with a 79-14 vote. The president claims that he is standing up for tax payers and is budget conscious and will not spend on every little project out there that will benefit these Congress peoples in their districts. Bush has not vetoed too many bills since he has been in office and clearly objected to the WRDA Act as being too expensive.

U.S. Senator John Cornyn of Texas is in the news again and has had another 1.3 million dollars added to coffers from a rather successful fund-raiser held in River Oaks. President Bush attended and met with space shuttle Discovery astronauts and their families. State Representative Rick Noriega of Houston it seems will have a long way to go to at least semi-match him on campaign funds. I feel hard work will pay off now not later like an ant and a grasshopper who? will make food storage for the long winter a top priority.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5285633.html

POSTED BY NOAH AT 6:41 PM 0 COMMENTS

Who can you TRUST?

The Texas Democratic Trust may just be the most powerful and influential political action committee in Texas you have never heard about. The PAC began in 2004 with a goal of rebuilding the Texas Democratic Party from the ground up in an attempt to eventually convert the state back to blue once again. So far, they have been largely successful helping Democrats win back 7 seats in the House and helping Democrats to sweep Dallas County in the 2006 elections. However, their may be a few signs pointing to future slip ups.

For instance, thus far the PACs success has largely been due to the fact that they were able to stay under the radar and not draw much media attention. Now, they have made their way into many headline news stories in Texas politics and the little criticism they have received may just begin to get ugly. From the beginning of the PACs birth, many Democrats didn’t like the idea of a powerful group using “Washington like” political tactics to be directing the party. It’s as if they have become what they hated, a big money, political scheming machine, with the desire for power being the top priority over the issues. Many say, the Trust and the state party have become largely one in the same.

The Trust is walking a fine line in gaining the approval of many Democratic citizens. Earlier this year when state rep. Kirk England switched from the Republican to the Democratic Party, the changed was negotiated not with local democrats and voters, but with the trust. This left many people feeling left out and disconnected with the process. As well, the group is not even ran by many homegrown Democrats, but rather by political hotshots shipped in from D.C. To top it all off, the biggest friend of the group is Fred Baron who has donated almost 700,000 dollars this year alone and is the finance chairman for John Edwards. As expected, Mr. Baron is not looked upon highly in the eyes of conservatives and the Democratic Trust fares even worse. The two have the potential to give conservatives enough heat to start a fire. As we have learned in the past, Texas Republicans know how persuade voters and their opposition can be a powerful tool. As the Trust is forced out of hiding, look for conservatives to attack them with anything they can find within reason and sometimes without. More so, the Trust endangers itself by being a divisive figure within the Democratic Party, and may find itself turning many party faithful off from the whole process as they adopt methods many Democrats have come to hate.

In the end, the Texas Democratic Trust may be the only realistic way of helping the Texas Democratic Party win back the state. The party can’t fight the huge machine it is up against with grassroots methods forever. Eventually they have to become what they hate in order to have any real chance of putting Democrats in office. Though, at the same time they may find themselves dividing their own party, and putting Democrats at even worse ends with Republicans, and as they say “Divided We Fall.”

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/local/stories/DN-demtrust_30met.ART.State.Edition2.4214475.html

- Garrett

Searching For Didley-Squat: local news and third parties

Where are the third parties? ive searched repeatedly for news relating to third parties in Texas, and to no avail...

OK, i know that its essentially a one-party state in a two-party system, but there seriously has to be more going on. Austin is supposed to be the liberal, independent mecca of Texas, a blue island in the middle of a GOP-crimson sea. Were the state capitol, if any lobbyists from any strain of the political spectrum are going to focus efforts anywhere, its going to be in that big pink dome somewhere near the center of downtown. So why cant we hear about anything other than how the republicans and the democrats are mimicking the national slap-fest that is our political atmosphere?
So, i had some fun. I logged onto the Statesman's and the Chronicle's websites and searched the Libertarian, Green, Socialist, and Constitution parties; here is a play by play summary of my searching:
"Libertarian Party":
Both the Statesman and the Chronicle had some coverage of the libertarian's opposition to the much-discussed prop. 15 on this past election date; the Statesman had some mention of Ron Paul's stance; the Chronicle mentioned libertarian opposition to The Domain subsidies. But there was little discussion of the partys stances, presidential projects, or any comprehensive coverage of the workings of the party, it is treated as instead what seems to be a political philosophy buzzword.
"Green Party":
For a party that suceeeded on having a nationally recognized presidential candidate in 200, i was dismayed at the lack of coverage. the Statesman yielded essentially nothing, it picked up on the two words separately in articles related to North Korea and a few things here and there, but nothing about the party or its policies. The chronicle had only one recent mention, and it was related to the documentary that discusses Ralph Nader's career. Which came out in Febuary. My friend Bill Hollway is the Chairman of the Travis County Green Party, and i know through him that this is an active party that is always pushing its policies, so needless to say i was dismayed at the lack of coverage within Austin, one of the greenest cities in the nation.
"Socialist Party":
There was some international coverage related to nations in south america and eastern europe, but overall there was nothing to be found about the socialist party in the U.S. So much for rounded coverage.
"Constitution Party":
Nothing on the Statesman, small mentions in 2 articles on the Chronicle, dating 2005 and 2000. Its only a party based on the founding document of the nation, nothing important.

To be honest, it doesn't surprise me too much that these parties are ignored, after all, its not like they are winning elections, its not like they really matter, right? Well, nationally perhaps not, but locally they might have more sway than they are estimated to have; locally your vote counts for alot more sway than it does nationally and it dictates policy that effects you personally - ironic considering that most people dont vote in local elections. So locally third parties have more sway than you might think. I am most disenchanted by the Chronicle, Austins much coveted indipendant rag, for not picking up the proverbial ball on ths one. I might even write a somewhat irate letter to them, which i will certainly share with you, dear reader.

If i am to tack any Postscript onto this, its this slight tangent: vote in local elections. I know its past and really has little to do with tis particular Blog, but please remember to vote on the stuff that most directly affects you.

Giuliani to raise money in SA

Rudy Giuliani, is at the present moment the front runner for the 2008 presidential election for the Republican Party. He is planning to hold a pretty nice shin dig in San Antonio to raise money for his campaign. In all actuality, saying the name Rudy Giuliani and San Antonio is a bit odd. Texas is known for its staunch conservativeness and very Pro-Life stance on abortion. San Antonio especially is known for its very Roman Catholic people. So I found it odd that it would be the even penciled in for Giuliani’s fundraising stations. Houston seems more up his alley and pace, assuming he pronounces the name Houston right.

It would be nice to hear the man speak, so I hope he makes a pit stop here in Austin. If not maybe we can get Bob Cole to call his cell live on the air like he did Governor Perry last week. All the talk around town seems to link up the two men. In a month we have had Perry’s endorsement of Giuliani and now fundraisers in towns where you can’t fling a dead cat without hitting a pro-life Catholic. Something seems very off kilter here, but if you don’t rock the boat I certainly won’t. Giuliani has some very palpable policies that I can really get behind. Having been born and raised here in Texas I’m sure Statements like that are really reassuring to his camp.

This all and all has been a bit of a slow news month here in Texas considering there are 16 proposed constitutional amendments on the statewide ballot. Not much noise from our politicians either way on those proposals. Perry voted today, opting for early voting instead of waiting for Election Day. According to the Austin American Statesmen Perry stated, “I couldn’t find a lot wrong with any of the 16,” Perry said after voting. He encouraged citizens to go vote but said “you can’t make people exercise their right to vote.” This is true, you can’t even with millions on the ballot we have things to do and people to meet

I personally think I’m gonna just say no to everything on the ballot. Nothing struck me as important enough to alter the Texas Constitution. Besides if Perry is behind all the proposals my inherit instinct is to go the opposite direction. So his endorsement of Giuliani has me in a bit of a perplexed state. Maybe he knows something I don’t. Either way I’m glad the presidential election isn’t until 2008, because I have no idea who to vote for. My man doesn’t seem to be gathering any steam.

Perry for Prez in '12? '16?

Governor Rick Perry hasn't announced it yet, but he's dropping hints left and right that, when taken as a whole, point to bigger plans beyond the Texas Governorship. He's most likely to break records for number of terms as Governor in the state of Texas, but recent policy and political shifts seems to indicate he plans to follow in the footsteps of George Bush to national policymaking.

The 2008 presidential election season started earlier than ever, and so far has been breaking all manner of records. Without a clear leader, Governor Perry has chosen to endorse Rudy Giuliani for the Republican ticket. In a state without a record of Giuliani's liberal-mixed policy, Perry's endorsement of Giuliani seems queer, considering there are several candidates besides Giuliani that appear to align with the Governor's policy record. Perhaps Perry is more populist, or (gasp) even liberal than his public steering lets on, but I would consider it equally likely (or equally effective) that he's vying for national legitimacy.

The position of Governor in Texas is very different from that of other states. Essentially, it's the Crown of England to the Lieutenant Governor's Prime Minister. The Governorship in Texas seems to be acquainted with a very hands-off, or perhaps just narrowly-focused policy set, meant really for handling sweeping disasters (I wouldn't doubt that some part of Perry wishes he could claim Hurricane Rita as his 9/11,) but otherwise out of the way of the grindstone of the bureaucracy or congress. It appears that the Governorship best for grooming future Presidents.

Perry sure does seem to be pushing Prop 15 hard, the 3 billion dollar appropriation to cancer research (and half as much in interest) that was pushed through by the Lance Armstrong's yellow band bloc. I don't know about you, but I was never aware that Texas cared so much about health care? The incongruity between public health policy in Texas and this (as well as the HPV vaccine that Perry unconstitutionally pushed through earlier this year) paint a picture of a man who is trying to appear more moderate than his record would indicate. When combined with his soaring (if lethargic) public support, the only solution is Perrys' bid for the national spotlight sometime in the future, hopefully in the footsteps of Bush (and LBJ?)

Send Me the Money

By Noah

This Nov. 6 sixteen proposed Amendments are on the ballot and could be added to our Texas Constitution if approved. Lawmakers fear a low-turnout this year. Proposition 11 is in the political spotlight, because of excitement over this new rule affecting a lawmaker’s accountability. What this means is taxpayers can see how individuals in Congress voted on the issues with a recorded vote vs. yeas and nays. I myself feel this could be a good thing, because this info made public and via the internet would allow voters to see how these politicians really stand or stood on these bills and issues. The League of Women Voters, the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas, the Texas Association of Broadcasters and the Texas Daily Newspaper Association all support this proposition. With no major opposition this proposition is sure to pass.

Democrats in Congress are up in arms on whether to approve at least 70 billion dollars of President Bush’s 196 billion dollar war spending request. This large amount of money would only keep the war financed for about ¾ of year. This means a lot for Texas troops with Army recruitment this year at a record low. The U.S. Army is complaining that they need thousands more highly trained troops to fuel the war. Iraq will need 20 to 30 billion U.S. dollars to reach full oil production of 5 million barrels per day. President Bush shot down increases in health and education programs. The Pentagon budget is set at 459 billion dollars. There is a 932 billion dollar request for agency budgets passed each year in Congress. The Democrats’ spending bill is going to receive more cuts; up to 4 billion dollars worth.

Although Iran publicly denies it, U.S. officials claim Iran has been sending weapons to Shiite militias in Iraq. With the deaths of U.S. troops down now to recorded low, the president claims a resolution and not a military strike will improve diplomatic relations.

The environment takes a stand in Congress with the bipartisan global warming bill. This makes me think it is time now to do something to protect the environment and not tomorrow has finally become an option less choice. I feel safe in saying money can’t buy you everything and it sure can not buy you the environment back. Nothing short of a miracle will get back for our children clean, cool air and water. Poisonous gases and filthy mineral stripped, burned out land is certainly no substitute for what our Forefathers had laid out for themselves some several hundred years ago. Time now for America to come forward together as a Democracy and impose limitations on pollution and release of greenhouse gases to save our world for the children.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/5265897.html

POSTED BY NOAH AT 8:50 0 COMMENTS