WHY the hell not.

Kinky Friedman now claims to be a Democrat, and that he will possibly run for Governor again in 2010. Lets be honest, he IS going to run for Governor again and once again our state will be covered in chic propaganda that will amount to nothing except another loss and more of Kinky's post-election whining.

I can’t help but think that if Kinky had not run for Governor in 2006, Chris Bell would have defeated Rick Perry. He may have run as an Independent , but I will bet most of his votes came from voters who would have voted Democratic otherwise. As a so called Democrat, he will not fare any better, and instead he will have a negative impact on the party.

Part of his appeal in the 2006 race was that he was the kind of anti-political politician, or statesmen as he liked to say. He didn’t conform to party lines, and he didn’t play the typical political game. But, now that he has realized you have to play the game to win, he has just become a radically eccentric politician. One that Texas can’t handle, and even the Democratic Party won’t have a part of.

The Texas Democratic Party has been working hard to regain respect from Texas voters by presenting a dedicated, honest, and moral image. They are at a point where Texans are starting to realize that the Democratic party does in fact represent some of their interests and should therefore be taken at least with some seriousness. Kinky Friedman puts the liberal stereotypes Texans have too often had back into their heads and therefore puts the Democratic Party in jeopardy of losing the ground they have recently worked so hard to achieve. The Democrats simply won’t let that happen and therefore will not nominate Kinky as their candidate. Can you imagine a race between Kinky and Kay Bailey Hutchinson? A gritty, off-kilter Jew versus a clean-cut Christian who has proven experience and statewide likability. Even if Kinky doesn’t get the parties nomination, I have a feeling he will once again be in the race as an Independent, and he will once again take enough votes away from the Democratic candidate to allow the Republican reign to continue. Kinky or not, it is still too earl for the Democratic Party of Texas to win the Governors office unless they can find another Tony Sanchez who can rally the growing Hispanic vote.

So Kinky, please do us all a favor and stick with what you do best, and leave politics to the politicians.

http://media.www.thebatt.com/media/storage/paper657/news/2007/10/31/News/Why-The.Hell.Not.Again-3067408.shtml


- Garrett

Hispanics may alter vote outcomes...Duh?

By Solman

Hispanics could affect the outcome of political elections in the near future according to people in the know around the capitol. By 2030, they could evidently even have chipped away at the Republican majority enough to change election outcomes.

No shit, huh? Didya figure that one out on your own?

There’s approximately 2,000 miles of border between Texas and Mexico, approximately 35% of Texas residents are of Hispanic Origin, and it’s the largest growing ethnic group in the state. So it kinda makes sense that politicians of all parties are paying attention; they kinda need the votes. According to Juan Castillo in the Statesman article linked below, one in 6 votes cast in Texas is cast by a Hispanic voter.

Hispanics traditionally vote Democratic; after all dems are usually the ones who support what (traditionally) are most important to Hispanics. From health care to employment to economic security, dems just seem to strike the right chord with Latinos. They attempted to appeal to this with the Dream Team a few years ago, but poor Sanchez just was too sleepy (and perhaps too white) to really appeal to Hispanics.

Republicans want their vote too, but with their most prominent members both statewide and nationally seemingly constantly calling for immigration reform and generally having an unfavorable and unfriendly attitude to Latinos, its gonna be slightly harder for them to successfully court the vote from Hispanics.

So according to Castillo’s article, by 2020 the republican majority could be unbalanced and even compromised by 2030. Maybe it’s a testament to number-crunching, but it seems pretty apparent to me regardless of statistics. When you’ve got an issue over the licensing of “taco trucks” in the capitol, id say Hispanics are worth noting in the population. When the Mexican American Cultural Center opens after a decade-old push for its construction, that sheer tenacity suggests a presence to me. When you see billboards in Spanish west of I-35, it’s a trend worth paying attention too. Especially for politicians, whose job it is essentially to keep an eye on the public, if for no other reason than to be ready for the next election.

So come on you guys, I suppose the numbers are helpful, but if your just now figuring this out, its no wonder our state is in the shape its in.

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/09/22/0922latinopol.html

Stop Drop and Roll Fire Campaign

In response to the massive devistation of the California fires, Texas has a new campaign called, "Ready or Not" that encourages Texans to prepare for an emergency. This statewide emergency plan isn't just for fires. The plan extends for hurricanes, terrorist attacks, and disease outbreaks. The Department of State Health Services or DSHS is launching the preparedness campeign. But is is really more like a do it yourself plan in some aspects of the plan. They boast an interactive website TexasPrepares.org. where locals can create their own emergency plan that best suits their needs along with all the necessary supplies. This looks like a throwback to the 50's bunker stock full of canned foods and tang.

The Emergency Preparedness video on the website is pretty funny. It's common sense put into words by Austin's own Ron Olivera. This grade school Plan is all fine and good in an ideal world, however it's a pretty weak response to the massive destruction of the California fires. I guess the message here is one of do it yourself security. This website is pretty handy but it doesnt really make me feel safe. I don't think any website would. What are the lessons we as a state can learn from the mass destruction of the California fires and Katrina? What party is ready to chime in on this debate?

In a recent political poll on CNN.com it looks like Republicans are standing by their man and giving him all the kudos he deserves for the quick response in California. Although Im sure quite a bit of the locals would agree the response wasn't quite quick enough. The people in these ares were loaded. The richest in the nation, so yeah maybe that had sometyhing to do with the respose. I'm not so sure if a national disaster, like a hurricane happend in Corpus Christi where the majority of people are hispanic, the response would be so quick and well orchestrated. So this lame little Texas website is what we have for now. So maybe for those of us that dont have millions should keep some canned foods, maps and water in a closet just in case.

I was living in Corpus when Katrina hit, watching the eye of the storm move away from Texas and closer to NewOrleans. But when all that devistation happend and that poor response was upon us. I couldn't help but think, man those poor black people could have very easily have been man those poor brown people, if the storm had hit Corpus instead. Watching the devistation that is around us in other states should be all the wake up call we need as a state. So maybe the adiquite amount of money will be available to us if this ever happens here.

Texas' primaries closed to the people's voice

The state of Texas seems to be a bit confused in terms of its primary process. Officially, Texas has closed primaries, meaning that one is unable to vote in multiple party's primary elections, though it's said that in practice Texas enjoys open primaries due to the lack of election-to-election party constance that other closed primary states enforce. It's my belief that closed primaries, even in Texas' weakened form (and even some implementation of open primary legislation,) run counter to the democratic process and only serve to further the dilluting effect that two-party politics has on legislation.

First of all, the nature of a primary is the selection of candidates to run on the national ticket. Under either system, each voter is only allowed to vote for one candidate, period. This, in essence, turns the primary into a pre-election, forcing the voters to vote before they cast their final ballot.

The primary argument against open elections is that it provides voters with an opportunity to vote for the opposition and dilute or manipulate an opposition party's nomination. This argument appears to have a hole in it, namely, that voters throw away their vote on a manipulative vote and do not get to select the candidate they actually prefer, but rely on the remainder of supporters for their party to make the right decision. This is,unfortunately for the anti-open primary bloc, a valid democratic expression, and it's entirely legitimate to vote specifically against a party. Obviously manipulation and dillution can happen, but what prevents both sides of the aisle from doing it? This argument supposes that only one party, probably the locally dominant party, will engage in dillution to keep its power, but who says that an open primary wouldn't give us Dennis Kucinich v. Ron Paul in 2008's presidential election, an election between unelectables?

Suppose a voter in Texas decides to be sneaky and vote Democrat in the upcoming Presidential primary. He'd vote for the candidates who are most likely to be both nominatable and defeatable by his own party. While he's busy voting for Barack Obama or Mike Gravel, his own party goes on to nominate Rudy Giuliani, the most liberal Republican of the major candidates, no thanks to Dr. Sneaky. He loses either way!

Both open and closed primary legislation has been indicted for constitutionality, namely the process of publicly declaring or registering your party affiliation. Now this is something I can get behind. I believe that ideally, a voter should be able to vote “by office” not “by party” when the Primaries roll around. This is currently impossible in either of the dominant primary systems, disabling independents and the two diametrics (libertarians and statists) from effectively voting their mind, instead choosing a party that suits all their needs on all levels of government.

Crack Under the Pressure

By Noah

Right now at the polls Senator Hillary Clinton is leading her Democrat rival Barack Obama 48%- 17%. She is ahead of Republicans in general-election match ups, with Giuliani behind by 6 percentage points. Giuliani 32% Republican voters backing him, his biggest lead this year. That is twice that of Fred Thompson. I believe this trend will continue throughout the year and the struggles will deepen with a closer look at Americas’ Health Care Reform Resolutions. Democrat Bob Kerrey won’t enter race to replace the retiring Republican Senator Chuck Hagel from Nebraska as so many Democrat supporters had hoped. Would the Democrats fix the ailing Health Care Industry with funds siphoned away from the Defense Department’s War on Iraq? President Bill Clinton vowed to do it and succeeded in lowering medical inflation rates while in office. Old war and is guaranteed to continue … and means big money and contracts. Some support the spread of Democracy throughout Middle Eastern Nations. I myself feel peace will come through talks and a gradual lifting of sanctions.

In the area where previous “party hopper” candidate Giuliani is apparently lacking Hawks help Giuliani to develop his foreign policy objectives. He believes in aggression towards terrorism, and is committed to intensifying military strength. Oddly enough Giuliani seems to share dislike for the United Nations. Strange character development for such an intelligent man. These neoconservative “hawks” are all prominent Republicans, and one Norman Podhoretz cites bombing Iran as soon as logistically possible and Mr. Daniel Pipes claims a much stricter eye should be placed on Muslim Americans in airports and in law enforcement fields. In a recent interview Giuliani reports that he does not feel Iran should be bombed as soon as possible. That is to his credit. Haven’t the Middle Easterners caught in the middle of all this suffered enough already?

U.S. is seeking strictest new sanctions on Iran to punish Iran’s military. Unilateral sanctions with the Revolutionary Guard Corps named as proliferators of weapons of mass destruction and elite Quds Force designated as terrorist supporters. These people want nuclear weapons to protect themselves and what is to say they won’t just blow up Israel and then just turn the gun on the U.S. Bush administration has made clear attitude toward Cuba to remain confrontational amidst problematic relations. Same old communist scare over these two countries still preventing real peace relations programs backing the people from being implemented.

Celebrating the victory of Bobby Jindal, elected governor of Louisiana, President Bush attended fundraiser hosted by Republican Governors Association, just blocks away from the White House. They raised almost ¾ of a million dollars for Republican gubernatorial candidates across the nation. Louisiana, Mississippi and Kentucky are the only states electing governors this year, and both states with Republican incumbents. Polls like LA Times/Bloomberg finding America dissatisfied with Pres. Bush and a Democrat controlled Congress doing nothing for health care. Maybe should large employers help pay for coverage and could health care insurance be mandated? U.S Senate went against Bush’s education and health cuts. President Bush’s drug war plan draws fire in both the U.S. and Mexico.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5236314.html

POSTED BY NOAH AT 10:28 PM 0 COMMENTS

Throwing in the Towel

Texas Senator John Cornyn got a dose of good news on Tuesday; his highly fundraised Democratic opponent Mikal Watts dropped out of the 2008 race to try and boot him out of the Senate. Watts had out-raised Cornyn with a total of 8.6 million dollars compared to Cornyn’s 6.6, though 7.7 million of Watts total was out of his own pocket.

Watts stated he threw in the towel because he felt like his rigorous campaigning was having a negative affect on his children. However, despite his large sum of campaign money, many pundits believed that his Democratic opponent Rick Noriega had a better chance at winning the nomination and eventually booting Cornyn out of office. Noriega is an Afghanistan War veteran and a Hispanic giving him a better chance at winning the Hispanic vote unlike the very wealthy Watts. As well, Watts had taken plenty of scrutiny from liberal Democrats because of his pro-life stance on abortion.

So, way to go fellow Democrats.You convinced the only man capable of beating Cornyn to quit. Yeah, Noriega may have had a better chance of winning the Democratic nomination, but with his limited funds, he doesn’t have what it takes to get his message heard across the state like Watts did. I admit, I am not a fan of Watts elaborate spending for his own cause, but I will gladly accept a selfish rich man that can improve our health care and education systems in Texas over an honest man who can’t win office.

The attention paid to his stance on abortion is absolutely ridiculous. So the man is conservative on one issue, that doesn’t mean the issue is going to be at the top of his agenda. If anything, the Democratic Party could use more politicians who are pro-life to sway more Christian votes. This could be especially important in gaining a majority of Roman Catholic voters and ensuring a strong hold on Hispanic voters. Sadly, there are many people who vote solely on the issue of abortion, and if they were faced with two pro-life candidates, they would be forced to look at other issues.

In the end, voters are gong to be faced with the choice of an experienced and recognizable Senator who has the support of the president, or a man who no one knows much about. The question will be whether the Hispanics ever show up to the polls to give Noriega enough support to win, or whether Cornyn will be so unpopular that voters will vote for anyone to get Cornyn out of office. Either way, it should be a race that demands attention.

- Garrett

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-cornynrace_24tex.ART.State.Edition1.42082c7.html

Cancer Research $ bad news for Libertarians?

Texas Libertarians might be standing alone this time. Not that its the first time, but it seems like this time they are dancing with political suicide. They dont like Proposition 15. They are opposing cancer research. Whoops.

Ok, so im not telling the whole story. Its the sources of the funding they dislike; the $3 billion would come out of taxpayers pockets whereas the Libertarians (and other, mostly conservative groups) feel that it should be funded by private contributions. The bill, going to the polls on Nov. 6th, has received widespread support across the political aisle and this seems to be the only group voicing any opposition towards it. Spokespeople clarify they have no opposition to the research, but in keeping with Libertarian philosophy they want government to have no role.

I can understand. The medical industry nationwide grosses massive amounts of profit, and it certainly seems like it would be in the interest of pharmaceutical companies to pursue a cure for a disease that kills an immense amount of people each year. It would seem then that government funding would be on the verge of superfluous, especially with national trade debts bulging at the seams and bridges collapsing under car’s wheels. But at the same time I have to wonder: if we are making daily advances towards a cure, surely an additional $3 billion would simply speed or improve the chances of eliminating cancer. And with cancer being such a hot topic issue and garnering so much public attention, doesn’t it make sense in a (theoretically) representative government that the publics money be used to fund something so many people seems to support? Though often populist in nature, I cant help but wonder if the Libs are missing the point on this one.

And from an exclusively political standpoint, aren’t libertarians committing suicide on this one? Intentions may be best, but it seems like this will work to limit the efforts of a party already hobbled by the American two party system. Their intentions are voiced, but I fear the thing most voters will hear will be something along the lines of ‘Libertarians oppose cure for cancer.’ Id like to hope no news outlet would be so hyperbolic and one-sided, but its hard to find faith in modern media treatment. So I really cant help but wonder if there might be weighty fallout over the issue. Perhaps the efforts biggest hindrance is also its saving grace come next election, for as this story could be warped to portray libertarians negatively, perhaps it’s a boon of the two-party system as it does little to affect already miniscule media coverage of Texas Libertarians.

Blessing or curse? Maybe we can find a cure for that.

http://www.news8austin.com/content/your_news/default.asp?ArID=193957