Rest In Peace, Molly Ivins

Who will step up to replace the irreplaceable Molly and Ann? From the Texas Observer moments ago... Molly Ivins left her editor's chair at The Texas Observer more than 30 years ago and went on to play a larger stage. But she never left us behind. She remained convinced that Texas needed a progressive, independent voice to call the powerful to account and to stand up for the common folk. She kept our voice alive. More than once, when the paper was on the brink of insolvency, she delivered speeches and gave us the honorariums. She donated royalties from her best-selling book Shrub to keep the doors open. Her determination and efforts sustained the Observer as a magazine, as a family, and as a community. Molly was a hero. She was a mentor. She was a liberal. She was a patriot. She was a friend. And she always will be. With Molly's death we have lost someone we hold dear. What she has left behind we will hold dearer still.

Nick Lampson To Be Speaker Pro Tempore Tonight!

Set your DVRs to C-SPAN! Put your kids in front of the TV and let them see legislation in action. Congressman Nick Lampson will be Speaker Pro Tempore tonight from 7 pm to 10 pm. This is a real honor, as Speaker Pelosi determines who will take her place and act as Speaker. I'm setting my DVR right now!

Melissa Noriega Campaign Kick Off This Friday!

You are invited to a Campaign Kick Off!

for Melissa Noriega
Candidate for Houston City Council At-Large Pos. 3
May 12th Special Election

Friday, February 2nd
5:30 to 7:30
Irma's
22 Chenevert near Franklin


Please join:

Irma Galvan & Olga Rodriguez
HCCS Board Member Jay Aiyer
State Representative Dr. Alma A. Allen
Houston City Council Member Carol Alvarado
Honorable Chris and Alison Bell
Yolanda Black Navarro
State Representative Ellen Cohen
State Representative Garnet Coleman
State Representative Jessica Farrar
State Senator Mario Gallegos
Honorable Herlinda Garcia
Houston City Council Member Adrian Garcia
State Representative Ana Hernandez
Houston City Council Member Sue Lovell
Charles and Connie Meisgeier
State Representative Borris Miles
Tommie and Joe Noriega
State Representative Dora Olivo
Houston City Controller Annise Parker
Honorable Gracie Saenz
HCCS Board Member Richard Schechter
Honorable Sue Schechter
State Representative Senfronia Thompson
Honorable Eleanor Tinsley

Contributions at the door are welcome, but not required. No corporate or union checks, please.

Please rsvp to votenoriega@gmail.com with the number of guests.

NASA Administrator Reprimanded Over DeLay Endorsement

I almost forgot all about this. But here it is, back in the news today. Last March, Michael Griffin, NASA Administrator was caught by a Galveston newspaper reporter endorsing Tom DeLay at a rotary event. Concerned Lampson volunteers got right on it and emailed Griffin. One of them received an email back from him and I blogged about it. That email from Griffin ended up being quite a big deal with the entire text of it posted on Nasa Watch (read entire email exchange here - worth the read!). From my blog post:

Michael Griffin got himself into a bit of a tight spot back in March when he introduced Tom DeLay at a Rotary Club function. A reporter at the Galveston Daily News reported this:

"The congressman did pick up surprisingly out of the norm endorsement over the weekend when NASA director Michael Griffin asked those in the space community to send DeLay back to Washington.

In his keynote speech to the Rotary National Award for Space Achievement Friday night, Griffin said DeLay was “the best friend NASA has” in Congress. He also said every effort should be made to re-elect him to office."

When Griffin was confronted with this in an email from a, um, concerned member of the community, his response was (and the Mike Griffin Quote-A-Thon continues):

"First, the quote you attributed to me is in fact incorrect. Second, even if I did, it would be okay. The Hatch Act applies to the career civil service cadre. I am a political appointee, not a career civil servant. If I chose to "endorse" a candidate from my party -- and I have not -- there would be no violation of the Hatch Act."

See, he was trying to tell this, um, "concerned member of the community" that she (or he) simply did not understand the intricate ins and outs of the Hatch Act which prohibits government employees from participating in political activities while on the job. Oh, and P.S. Griffin was flown to the Rotary event by NASA and was in his NASA uniform.

He practically calls this poor, dumb, little woman (or man) a liar. Come to find out, the speech was recorded and this is what Griffin said:

"Good evening. Thank you for having me here. Mr. Delay and I were chatting over dinner and I said, you know the way it ought to work is that I should be introducing you and you should do the keynote speech. And I really feel like that would be more appropriate. The space program has had no better friend in its entire existence than Tom Delay. He's still with us and we need to keep him there. There just are no better people."

I had no idea there was some sort of continuing investigation into this. But, as reported in today's Chronicle (emphasis mine):

NASA administrator Michael Griffin got a sharp reprimand from a federal watchdog today for comments that could have been interpreted as a political endorsement of embattled lawmaker Tom DeLay in Houston last March.

"We were concerned about the appearance that this was an endorsement of Tom DeLay by Mr. Griffin acting in his official capacity in Houston, very close to (DeLay's) district," Special Counsel Scott Bloch told the Chronicle.

"We are not releasing the letter sent to Mr. Griffin, but it was sternly worded," Bloch said.

Under the federal Hatch Act, government officials are barred from using their offices to endorse elected officials.

But Griffin "really walked up against that line," in remarks he made last March, Bloch said.
----
Bloch decided he could not prove that Griffin's remarks violated the Hatch Act, which bans federal employees from political activity while on duty. The black-tie awards dinner at which Griffin made his remarks was held after regular working hours but Griffin was representing the space agency and giving an award to a NASA employee, astronaut Eileen Collins.

Bloch, in a letter faxed to the administrator, warned Griffin to exercise better judgment.

A press statement issued by the Office of Special Counsel headed by Bloch said, "Everybody needs to abide by these prohibitions, but we expect high level officials to provide a better example."

NASA spokesman David Mould said Griffin never intended to make any endorsement.

"The administrator has acknowledged that the words he used probably did not convey the intention he had and he regrets the controversy the remarks have caused," he said.

Griffin's travel to Houston from Washington, D.C., for the dinner was paid by NASA rather than the Rotary Club, an official told the Chronicle last year.

Bloch said because Griffin is a political appointee approved by the U.S. Senate, any violation of the Hatch Act would be reported to the White House and could lead to suspension or even firing of such an official.

Bloch decided against charging that violation because Griffin's motivation couldn't be proved.

"It came across to some people as if Griffin were trying to keep DeLay in office. Griffin denied that, and we couldn't prove that was his motive, but we were concerned about the appearance," Bloch said. "It was a dangerous thing to do, because reasonable people could take it as an endorsement."

I'm not sure I've ever been called reasonable, but I'll take that as a compliment. It looks like Griffin got off easy on this. I hope my motivations can't be proved if I'm ever accused of violating a federal law. I'm definitely going to "be like Mike" and use that as my defense.

UPDATES: There is an AP story with this: Federal employees found to have violated the law can be removed from their position."We thought it was a very close call," Special Counsel Scott Bloch told The Associated Press.

Bay Area Houston adds some details about the HATCH act and NASA's past activity with DeLay.

Chris Bell, Legislative Party Planner

Well not exactly, but he has written an article where he ponders the theme of legislatures past and a possible theme for the 80th. Chris is sort of exactly like me with my cleverness at assigning a theme to this year's governor's inaugural ball: Under the Sea. So, he wonders about "Let's Go Camping" as the theme for the year the state park system was established. (Maybe this year, with the severe underfunding of the state park system, it could be "Let's Sleep on the Sidewalk!") The last legislative session could have been a Halloween Ball. For those of you who never thought Chris Bell was funny or didn't get his sense of humor during the campaign, know that I died laughing at this: There would have been cauldrons with dry-ice smoke pouring out, and the sound effect screams of women and children bellowing in the background throughout the night. For optimal effect, guests would have walked past a giant poker chip on their way into the party, but then would see it cut in half on their way out; it would have been a very clever way for the Republicans to signal what they planned to do that year to the Children’s Health Insurance Program. He suggests a "Let's Scrub the Decks!" theme because of the dire need for ethics reform. He says there is a need to restructure the Ethics Commission so it can actually enforce the rules. My hero! And then there is the "Save Our Schools" theme that is so needed. I think this is going to be ignored. Chris suggests a: party for lawmakers should be held at a split-level facility. All of the food and entertainment should be on the second level, but in order to get there, guests should be required to pass a standardized test. They’ll soon realize that all of their time at the party is being spent on preparing for the test, that they really haven’t learned very much and that it’s not the least bit enjoyable. He also makes an allusion to band aid approaches to fixing things that desperately need comprehensive solutions. Maybe we should all send band aids to our representatives with a note that they should use them on themselves, not on legislation. Chris Bell will be writing a weekly column for The Examiner which you can read here. This is welcome news!

Ted Poe: Wingnut

While I'm at home, hard at work for a Very Important Person, I am watching C-SPAN out of the corner of my eye. A "gentleman from Texas" was given permission to speak for one minute on the House floor, and what do you know, it was Ted Poe. He gave one example of an illegal immigrant who committed several egregious crimes in Illinois. Apparently this means we should go way off the deep end with legislation on illegal immigration. He ended his little speech with, "and that's just the way it is." This type of logic leads to all sorts of analogies. Let's give the example of Congressman Mark Foley. He did very bad things. This means all Congressmen are bad, bad people and should resign! I think Ted Poe is an awful Congressman with harmful right wing ideology. He is bad and he should resign. And, that's just the way it is!

Craddick Wants The Lege To Write Him a Blank Check

Sigh. Craddick wants to keep business as usual - via a rules change - in the Texas House, to ensure his legislative agenda. There is a good chance this can be stopped. The people of Texas would be the winners rather than Craddick's PAC and business cronies. Texas House Speaker Tom Craddick (R-Midland) has asked all 150 members of the Texas House of Representatives to be present for an important vote on Tuesday. The vote? It's to suspend the constitutional rule that prohibits consideration of legislation not designated by the governor as an "emergency" on the House floor during the first 60 days of the session. Suspending the rule requires a four-fifths majority vote. The rule has been suspended every legislative session except one. It would take as few as 31 legislators voting against suspending the rule to thwart Craddick's desires. House Democratic Leader Jim Dunnam (D-Waco) has said there is no reason to give Craddick a "blank check" to aid in speeding up any legislation he desires with very little input from committees. After all, in 2003, Craddick used this very mechanism to cram tort reform and an anti-consumer, pro-business agenda down the throats of the Texas Legislature and the people of Texas. The 80th Legislature is far different from the 78th Legislature, though. There are more Democrats and they are more united than ever before (witness the 27 Democrats who voted "no" on Craddick for Speaker versus just four in 2005). One thing remains a constant, however: Speaker Tom Craddick. Craddick, like a leopard, cannot change his spots. His agenda remains the agenda of the people who bought and paid for the Republican Majority in 2002 and have continued to help fund Craddick's Speaker's PAC—Stars Over Texas. You know who we're talking about: Bob Perry, James Leininger, Texans for Lawsuit Reform, and the Texas Association of Business "anti-consumer" crowd. Distribution of these funds to campaigns of key Craddick lieutenants (and challengers to anti-Craddick Republicans) has helped him retain his power. For the last two legislative sessions and the special sessions, we have had the agenda of these people and groups crammed down our throats by Tom Craddick. Good legislation to help the people of Texas has taken a back seat to legislation that key contributors wanted. Not only that, but we've seen thousands of children knocked off their health insurance—and worse—by Tom Craddick's Reign of Legislative Terror. It's time to tell Tom Craddick, "Mr. Speaker, not just no, but Hell No." Take away the Speaker's blank check for legislative mayhem. He has proven himself unworthy of it. Look no farther than the recent committee assignments, where supporters were rewarded and enemies back-benched. Now is not the time for this rule suspension. Democrats and Republicans must unite and take the power out of Craddick's hands and put it back in the collective hands of the 150-member body politic that is the Texas House of Representatives. Call your State Representative today, and politely encourage them to vote against suspending the four-fifths "60 day" rule. Here is a list of State Representatives. And, if you don't know your rep, you can put in your zip code in on that page and find who your rep is.

Introducing Sherrie Matula's Blog!

Sherrie Matula who ran against John Davis in HD-129, is blogging! She did some blogging during the campaign and she has started back up in order to continue the conversation about important issues with her community. There are great posts up about teacher performance pay and Craddick.

Here's what she says about performance pay for teachers, and she is so right:

A school is like a gigantic jigsaw puzzle that is not complete until all the pieces come together. Each piece of the puzzle is important and meaningful. The cafeteria staff greeting the students in the morning and providing breakfast to start the day, the custodian helping to students in the halls, the teachers doing what they do best - inspiring learning, and I could go on and on. The teachers must work together from Pre-Kindergarten or Kindergarten through high school building the knowledge within the students and sharing their passion for learning. Should anyone be valued more within this process? NO! An emphatic NO! The school should be rewarded and to be honest, a part of that reward should be given to the students, who are forgotten in this whole discussion.

Sherrie taught 25 years in Clear Creek ISD and Pasadena ISD, and is currently a consultant to schools on school improvement plans. I have a link to Sherrie's blog in my blogroll to the right.

Iraq War Summit Tomorrow In Houston

There are marches and events going on all over the country tomorrow to protest our continuing involvement in the Iraq War and I wondered if Houston was planning something. Well, here you go:

THE IRAQ WAR SUMMIT: WHAT NEXT? Join A Constructive Dialogue On Saving Lives Of Americans, Securing The Homeland, And Bringing Our Troops Home With Dignity.

Houston, TX – Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, the author of several congressional bills questioning the constitutionality of the war in Iraq, will host a summit on the Iraq war and silent march for peace to engage the 18th Congressional District in a constructive dialogue to develop a new voice for peace to be heard in the United States Congress. WHO: Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee and other invited guests WHAT: IRAQ WAR SUMMIT: WHAT NEXT? Summit and Peace March with Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee WHEN: Saturday, January 27, 2006 1:00 PM to 2:00 PM Iraq War Summit: What Next? 2:00 PM to 3:00 PM Silent March for Peace WHERE: Mickey Leland Federal Building, 1919 Smith Street, 12th Floor NOTES: The Community is invited.

Play For Performance Pay

I've filed this under No S**t Sherlock. HISD just delivered performance bonuses across the entire district to teachers based on improvements in TAKS scores. The top bonus was over $7000 and the bottom end of the scale was, well, zero. $14 million dollars paid out to 8000 teachers. Yay! Well, not so much. This type of pay for play performance system might seem like business as usual to those of you in the business world, but in Education this, predictably, caused an uproar from teachers. Teachers who aren't in core subject areas or certain grade levels were not eligible for the larger bonuses. If 100% of the students in a class passed TAKS, but didn't score at a high level, the bonus was smaller. Principal evaluations of a teacher or things like Teacher of the Year Award did not play into the bonus system. Some support personnel were eligible for the bonuses, but based on the performance of the whole school. The morale busting thing about all of this is that the amount of the bonuses are a matter of public record and the Chronicle made the amount of the bonus for every teacher in HISD VERY public. You can go on their website and look up the bonus pay for any teacher in any school. If you haven't ever taught in a public school, it might not be immediately obvious why this is careening towards a morale busting nightmare across the entire school district. Teachers have to work collaboratively in a school in order to provide the best instruction to students. Teachers typically work in teams, whether by grade level or subject area. The working relationship among teachers needs to be collaborative and collegial, not competitive. While bad teachers need to be weeded out and good teachers need to be rewarded, GOOD TEACHERS NEED TO BE REWARDED. We're using TAKS scores as a basis to judge kids, schools and school districts already, with the public and public officials not being convinced this works for anyone. Now, teachers are inevitably having their pay tied to TAKS. HISD Superintendent Abe Saavadra called the teachers who got the largest performance bonuses "the cream of the crop." Based on the angry feedback he's received about that comment, he released an "apology" where he said: Let me start by extending apologies to any teacher who was offended by any remark or comment I made. I agree that referring to the recipients of our performance-pay program as the "cream of the crop" and "dedicated" suggests that the others are not, and that was not my intention. This pretty much sounds like one of those apologies where someone says, "I'm sorry you are mad at me." It sounded even more that way in an interview with the Chronicle: "Frankly," he added, "I'm big enough to apologize to people when my statements are misunderstood." The whole letter to school personnel is worth reading. He's not very happy with the Chronicle. He's creating a committee of principals and teachers to give recommendations on improving the system for next year. Performance pay for teachers is a very complicated issue. Rewarding good teachers is a great idea, but the system needs to motivate teachers to work hard to ensure success for students in the future, not one that causes good teachers to want to give up. The super fun thing is that TAKS season has begun. Let the competition begin.

Lampson and Cuellar Respond To State Of The Union

This is my favorite of the two:

CONGRESSMAN HENRY CUELLAR RESPONDS TO PRESIDENT'S STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Congressman Henry Cuellar made the following statement in response to the President's State of the Union address.

"The President this evening spoke to the American people about his plans for moving our nation forward. While I respect him and his proposals, I believe that the American people have their own plan. They announced their plan last November, when they elected a new majority to lead Congress.

This new majority is already moving forward with the people's agenda. We started our first hundred hours with a broad bipartisan legislative agenda:

1. that establishes stronger ethics rules for Congress
2. that restores fiscal responsibility to federal spending
3. that implements the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission
4. that increases the minimum wage of working Americans
5. that expands stem cell research
6. that requires negotiations for lower prescription drug prices
7. that cuts student loan interest rates
8. and that invests in renewable energy

I am highly optimistic about the future of our great nation. I look forward to working with my Congressional Colleagues and the President to move the people's agenda forward. We will all work to bring our brave men and women home from Iraq. We will work to make health care accessible to all. We will work to strengthen our economy and spread prosperity to all Americans. We will work to build a stronger and safer American, where all American's can enjoy the fruits of their labor."

And, here is Nick's:

Congressman Nick Lampson’s Statement on President’s State of the Union Address

Congressman Nick Lampson (D-Stafford) issued the following statement today regarding President Bush’s State of the Union address:

“I look forward to working with President Bush on issues affecting Southeast Texas and our nation.

I am particularly eager to work in a bi-partisan fashion on legislation concerning renewable energy, increased funding for space exploration and research, education, and improving laws to protect our children against predators online and on the streets. These are all issues that deserve our undivided attention, and I believe that we will work together to improve the quality of life for all Americans.

As co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, I want to personally recognize First Lady Laura Bush for inviting Ernie Allen, President of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, as her guest to tonight’s address. This action illustrates her support for this important issue, and for the Center’s mission.”

Shut Up Shelley!: Sekula-Gibbs Stalks Lampson

This is ridiculous. Shelley Sekula-Gibbs is making a list of Nick Lampson's congressional votes, checking them twice and then turning them into something else entirely. This is called "lying." You know, I thought I was going to get to take a break from making fun of her. What did I have, a whole month of vacation from Shelley? At most? Here we have Congressman Lampson voting for all of the first 100 hour legislation - you know - the reason we had the Democratic takeover of Congress, and we have Shelley sending out ridiculous emails to the voters in TX-22. Here you go, her email blast and installment #1 of "Shut Up, Shelley!": Lampson’s First Votes Against Wishes of Texas 22 Voters Newly elected Democrat Congressman Nick Lampson, following House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s lead, is marching in lockstep with other Texas Democrats by voting to:

• Fund human cloning studies, known as Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer research.

• Make America more vulnerable to terrorist attack by taking away President Bush’s ability to coordinate inspections of incoming cargo for weapons of mass destruction and placing this authority under United Nations control.

• Elevate the rights of suspected terrorists over the safety of American citizens. Lampson voted to establish an independent board with subpoena powers to protect the civil liberties of persons investigated under American anti-terror laws.

• Restrict our national intelligence agencies by creating a house panel that “oversees” all intelligence appropriations. This panel is likely to produce the same type of Congressional red tape that prohibited the CIA, FBI and local law enforcement from communicating with each other before the 9/11 attacks.

• Take a giant step toward socialized medicine by requiring the federal government to get between Medicare patients and their pharmacists and “negotiate” (i.e. establish government price controls) for drugs. This will lead to a national drug formulary, fewer drugs available for seniors and the general public, and no option when the prescription drug plan does not meet the patient’s needs.

After promising voters in District 22 that he would represent their conservative values, Nick Lampson has reverted to his liberal ways. Ms. Pelosi wins but the people of Texas 22 lose. Pelosi!!! That's an old, tired scare tactic. I hope installment #2 of Shut Up, Shelley! is as goofy as this one.

Republican Rep. Wants Bush's Name Off "Welcome To Texas" Signs

Finally, a proposed bill that makes sense, submitted by Rep. Ken Paxton, R-McKinney, requiring that the words "Proud Home of President George W. Bush" be deleted - scratched off! - the Welcome to Texas highway signs. I say let's do it right now, today, in preparation for the embarrassment that will be the State of the Union address tonight.

Oh, wait. On reread, I see that Paxton wants to change the sign to read:

Welcome to Texas--Proud Home of President [insert name of President of the United States]

That is, if the President is a resident of Texas.

My question is, why does Paxton think there will be a President from Texas any time in the near future? The Decider has sort of screwed that up for us. Hmm. Unless . . . unless . . . those signs have a Democratic Texan POTUS on them next. Shh. I don't want to give Rep. Paxton any reason to retract his bill from consideration.

The bill would take effect January 20, 2009, the day our new President will be sworn in to office. So, even the Texas Republicans are eager for a "drop dead" date when they no longer have to be proud of Bush.

If we could make changes to the sign right now, I would suggest inserting a new name for Bush. I like "Connecticut Native George W. Bush." We wouldn't have to take full responsibility for him, that way.

Here's the bill:

80R3976 ACP-D By: Paxton H.B. No. 693 A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
	AN ACT
	relating to the form of "Welcome to Texas" signs along certain
	highways.
	BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
	SECTION 1. Section 201.617, Transportation Code, as added
	by Chapter 474, Acts of the 79th Legislature, Regular Session,
	2005, is amended by amending Subsection (b) and adding Subsection
	(c) to read as follows:
	(b) A "Welcome to Texas" sign erected by the department
	must include the following elements:
	(1) a depiction of the state flag; and
	(2) the phrase "Drive Friendly--The Texas Way." [;
	and
	[(3) the phrase "Welcome to Texas--Proud to be the
	Home of President George W. Bush."]
	(c) If the president of the United States is a resident of
	Texas, a "Welcome to Texas" sign erected by the department must
	include the phrase "Welcome to Texas--Proud Home of President
	[insert name of the president of the United States]."
	SECTION 2. The Texas Department of Transportation shall
	ensure that a "Welcome to Texas" sign erected by the department
	before the effective date of this Act complies with this Act not
	later than September 1, 2009.
	SECTION 3. This Act takes effect January 20, 2009.

Ted Nugent Wants To Get You In a Stranglehold, Baby

Governor Rick Perry and Ted Nugent had a little phone chat about his wardrobe choice and behavior at the inaugural ball last week, with Perry giving his enthusiastic "you're going to Hollywood!" approval.

Queen of the Forest Nugent wore a confederate flag t-shirt while performing for Governor Goodhair and guests. That caused some controversy among people in the real world, circa 2007.

In a Fort Worth Star Telegram interview, Nugent says the phone conversation went down like this:

Perry "called me to tell me, when they attack me for wearing the rebel flag, 'be sure you tell them that I, as governor, support the waving of the rebel flag at the Laredo airport, alongside with the American, Texas and Mexican flags, and tell them to drop dead.'"

From Camp Perry:

Perry spokesman Robert Black said the governor told Nugent "he had a right to wear whatever he wanted, just like the Laredo airport had the right to fly whatever flag it wanted." Black denied that Perry told Nugent the detractors could "drop dead."
---
"You're not going to see Rick Perry on the jogging trail in a Confederate T-shirt," Black said. "He would consider that in poor taste."

And, Nugent, channeling The Decider, had this to say about the Putrid People who are are about sick to death of him:

"I cannot be destroyed. I cannot be silenced. I cannot be compromised," Nugent said. "And if you desire to do so, by all means examine my schedule and let's get it on. And here's the bottom line: They have to call me a racist in the convenient insulation of distance from their putridity of abuse of the First Amendment." (But, will he fight 'em on the ice? That's what I want to know.)

Perry is right. People have the right to dress up as they wish, but it seems a tad disingenuous for him to make his Great Society speech on the morning of inaugural day and then cozy up to a tiresome, racist guy in public that same evening.

I've lived in the Deep South where the Confederacy is alive and well. It's not in poor taste to wear the Confederate flag on your person. It's wrong to wear the Confederate flag on your person. I shouldn't have to explain that to Governor Perry or anyone else. It's wrong, get over yourself, it's wrong.

Eye on Williamson has more.

State Of The Union Secret Revealed: The Line That Will Get A Standing Ovation

And, for a flashback to the 2006 SOTU, see this parody. I don't think it will be that different than what we will hear tomorrow night.

Don't be a criticizer! Don't cut and run! If Bush catches Osama Bin Laden, he will find him. Our children must be literized. Old people need the pills to make their dreams happen. Bush's job is to presidate.

Fortunately, we have a Democratically controlled Congress and the checks and balances on the presidating have made a reappearance.

Oh, and that Trent Lott is such a comedian! Bless his southern heart. See his cute comment about his distaste for the possible jumping up and down during Bush's speech. The jumping up and down at my house will commence when Senator Webb gives the Democratic response to the State of the Union address. I expect that to be a smack down. I suggest that everyone make their kids watch that part. It's going to be good.

Time To Break Out the Marc Jacobs Hillary T-Shirt!

I bought mine after she won her first Senate race. When I wore it around Sugar Land (and I would forget I had it on), I would wonder why women would stare at my, um, chest. That was back in the old days, the days of Tom DeLay, when about the only way you were willing to signal to your friends and neighbors that you were a Democrat was by staring at the chest of the woman who would dare to wear the chic Hillary t-shirt around town - and smile at her. I would wonder WHY all those women were staring and smiling at me. I'd finally realize, OH! it's the t-shirt.

Anyway, Clinton made it official today. She's running.

See you around Sugar Land and Houston today. You'll know me by what I am wearing. I actually have two of these. I think I'll wear the blue, long-sleeved one.

Republicans Heart Ed Shack, Ethics Attorney

I found out in a big way that it's not just Rep. John Davis who calls on Ed Shack when in need of a lawyer for extrication from ethics messes. A whole bunch of Texas Republicans appear to have Shack on speed dial. Why? Shack's bio gives a clue (emphasis mine): Ed Shack Attorney At Law Mr. Shack has been in private practice for the last fifteen years advising corporations, law firms, candidates, officeholders, PACs, and lobbyists regarding the Election Code, campaign finance, lobby laws, the Penal Code, and Standards of Conduct for State Officials. Previously, Shack served in the Elections Division of the Secretary of State reporting to six different Secretaries; three Democrats and three Republicans. In 1991 he served as staff to the Governor's Task Force on Ethics charged with developing the rules and procedures that the newly created Texas Ethics Commission would use. Who better to call when you need advice and counsel about ethics than the guy who served as staff for the task force that created the Texas Ethics Commission rules? An anonymous commenter to my post on John Davis and Ed Shack had this to say: he [Shack] in fact, is really one of the few attorneys who understands our state's arcane and assanine ethics laws and the inner workings of the idiocy of the Texas Ethics Commission. Ed should be on the regular payroll of virtually every state officeholder if for no other reason than that he has the smarts to help these men and women stay in compliance of a seriously screwed up system. I'm a little confused. If the TEC laws are arcane and assanine (sic), who are you going to blame for that? Maybe the staff and task force that created those laws? Perhaps those people are the ones who understand the loopholes in the law the best? Just wondering. Shack has no shortage of Texas Republican officeholders on his client list. From the Texas Ethics Commission website, here is the list of candidates and officeholders who have paid for Ed Shack's legal services from their campaign funds since 2000. The thing that caught my eye first was Stars Over Texas PAC - Tom Craddick's leadership PAC which I affectionately call "Son of TRMPAC". Seriously, TRMPAC got great legislative results, but is having a few problems in the courts, so it was dissolved and SOT was created to get Republican candidates elected to the House, but . . . legally. Who better to advise on Stars Over Texas than Ed Shack, what with his past representation of Craddick, and his involvement with TRMPAC via the Texas Association of Business? Who else listed Shack as payee on their TEC reports? Craig Estes, Mike Krusee, Dan Patrick, Rick Perry, David Dewhurst, Ben Bentzin, Susan Combs, Toby Goodman, Greg Abbot, Carole Keeton Rylander Strayhorn (what IS her name? I forgot, already), Harris County Republican Party, Terry Keel, along with other Republicans, PACs and some Democrats (Vilma Luna, for example). Some of these people have used Shack extensively (see the list and check out Dewhurst, Combs and Rylander, for example). Over the six years, Shack was paid approximately $470,000 by these officeholders and candidates for legal services. I blog. You decide why all of these people need Ed Shack's services. UPDATE: Vince at Capitol Annex has something to say about Ed "The Love Shack" Shack.

State Rep. Hires TRMPAC Lawyer

It's that time of year! It's like Christmas if you enjoy peering into the financial goings on of candidates and officeholders. Maybe more like a car wreck? January semi-annual campaign finance reports were due this week and they are all up on the Texas Ethics Commission website. You know what that means, time to check up on Rep. John Davis (R-Clear Lake) and find out how he is spending his campaign cash. There was a surprise or two.

I was really curious if he would have a lot of gas expenditures. No. A lot of meal expenditures? No. A lot of expenditures simply listed as American Express? No. A high-end boot purchase, maybe? No, not even that. Seems like Rep. Davis has cleaned up his act! Very cool. If I had something to do with that, well good.

The first interesting thing I discovered was that he had transferred over $77,000 of his campaign cash to a PAC - Texans for John Davis. Huh. There were not a lot of expenditures there, but there was one for an Edward M. Shack for professional services. $4950 on December 13th.

OK. And, then I looked at the report for his regular campaign account. Again, $8625 to Edward M. Shack 0n November 11th. Mr. Shack received a total of $13,575 from John Davis in December.

Who is this Ed Shack?

Well, he was Tom Craddick's attorney during his race for Speaker in 2003 (he received 8 payments from the official "Speaker's Fund".) Read a letter he wrote to the Austin Chronicle about the Speaker's Fund here. Some questioned if the expenditures from that fund were legal.

He was a TRMPAC attorney, approving all of the donations and expenditures of the Texas Association of Business (TAB). In that TRMPAC link, Bill Cerveha, TRMPAC Treasurer notes, "we had legal advice from day one to be sure we did everything clean so there'd be no question about it." Well there were questions. There is a continuing investigation into TRMPAC by Travis County District Attorney, Ronnie Earle. The TAB was indicted by a grand jury for raising money for political campaigns, paying staffers to do political work and for illegally sending mailers to Republican candidates, among other things. They hid their involvement in the 2002 election by having TRMPAC distribute the mailers.

He was the attorney for Leininger's PAC that targeted incumbent Republicans who were not pro-voucher during their 2006 primaries.

He was Henry Cuellar's attorney during the recount in the run-off against U.S. House incumbent Ciro Rodriguez in the 2004 primary (Cuellar won by 58 votes, but it took an appeal to the 4th Circuit Court to accomplish that.)

Governor Rick Perry hired him to the tune of nearly $20,000 in 2005. I wonder what for?

Other officeholders who have hired him include Representatives Craig Estes, Mike Krusee and Terry Keel.

And, Shack has testified in front of the Texas Ethics Commission on various matters, including a TEC proposal to clarify how candidates and officeholders report reimbursements to staff.

The kicker is that in 1991, he served as staff to the Governor's Task Force on Ethics charged with creating the rules and procedures of the newly created Texas Ethics Commission - which has been described as toothless and gumless.

WHY does John Davis need such a high powered, politically connected attorney? Perhaps it is because four ethics complaints were filed against him. These complaints, all accepted by the TEC, were for numerous violations including improperly reporting over $41K in expenses as simply "American Express", improperly reporting reimbursements to himself from his campaign cash, reporting expenses in the wrong reporting period and personal use of campaign funds (over $22K). Ch. 11, Houston, did a story on Davis which you can view through a link here.

So, if you are a Republican in an ethics mess in Texas, who are you going to call? A TRMPAC attorney, of course!

The Under The Sea Governor's Inaugural Wrap-Up

First off, The Dress. You know, it's not as bad as it sounded - if I were to see it on Penelope Cruz or Cameron Diaz. I still say it's not the most flattering dress for a woman in her mid-50's and the picture shows why. At least, if you are a woman of a certain age, the couple of problems this dress is causing Anita Perry jump right out at you. The color, I actually like. If you are going to do pink, do this pink and not Shelley pink. But, it was the Perry's night, what with winning with 39% of the vote and all, so yay! I hope she had fun in that dress I wouldn't be caught dead in.

Now, consider the matter of Perry's inaugural address. Where to start. Let me just dive right in. Excerpts with commentary:

As we gather today, there is great reason for optimism in Texas. We have a record budget surplus, jobs are at an all-time high, children’s test scores are improving, home and medical insurance costs are decreasing, school finance is out of the courts and school property tax rates are on the way down. (He obviously needs medical help. He thinks he is being sworn in as the governor of some other state. Maybe a New England state.)

Here's the "I may be asked to be VP, so I gotta cover global issues" part of the speech:

We are now in an era of great global anxiety. Two conflicts on Israel’s border, and one in Iraq, threaten the stability of the entire Middle East, as well as the safety of America’s bravest men and women. Our greatest threat is no longer a Cold War enemy that advances a Godless ideology, but fanatics that kill the innocent and themselves in the name of a Higher Power. Rogue states and terror cells have made nuclear proliferation a greater threat, and leaders in Europe and Latin America have risen to power and popularity based on anti-American appeals.

We face not only a war on terror, but a war on drugs that brings violence to our border and carnage to millions of American families. (WAR! He'll be the War VP.)

Leaving war behind, let's move on to diseases, of which there are no shortages (unlike money for Texas state parks):

The 21st Century has begun with no shortage of human suffering. New treatments for the American victims of AIDS have seemingly insulated us from rampant suffering on two continents: Asia and Africa.

And an even more insidious disease, human hatred, has claimed many more lives, infecting tribes, ethnic groups and nations that commit genocide in places like the Sudan while much of the world stands idly by.

Here's where he rejects the TX GOP official stand on immigration. Perry will be the Immigration VP. Read this and ask yourself, is he trying to get on the Democratic ticket as VP? Maybe with Hillary? I mean, really:

We are both a nation of laws and immigrants; the former protect us, the latter enrich us.
---
I believe we can secure the border without compromising our economy, and we can implement a guest worker program without compromising our security.

Illegal immigration drains the resources of our schools, our hospitals and our law enforcement agencies. But I do not believe it is realistic to deport 12 million people already here illegally. We have to understand why millions of people come here, and why many more have died trying, it is for something as basic as the freedom to find a job and feed their families.

I know illegal immigration and border security are polarizing issues. To those on both sides of the issue, I simply make one request based on the words of the prophet Isaiah: “come now, and let us reason together.” Let us choose to sit down together and be a part of the solution rather than a source of division.

I start from this premise: we must secure the border with manpower, not unmanned walls. We must have a guest-worker program that recognizes the economic contributions of foreign workers and the desperate conditions that bring them here. And we must oppose amnesty because those who come here illegally should not be able to receive citizenship ahead of those who migrate here legally.

Continuing on, channeling LBJ, RFK and MLK, Jr.:

There are no black, white, Asian or Hispanic dreams. Take away what’s on the outside, and you see a common thread on the inside, the human desire to live a life of meaning, purpose and fulfillment.
---
I believe hatreds that are centuries old can be extinguished by one courageous generation. If hatred is something that can be taught, then so can the greatest attributes of any society: “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.” As the Apostle Paul wrote, “against such there is no law.”
----
The "I just visited the LBJ Library here in Austin for the first time" part of the speech:

And I also believe no great society can be built, or maintained, if we cultivate in our children the vanity of self rather than the virtue of selflessness.
---
As a society, we have a responsibility to those who languish in poverty, to empower them with the tools needed to live a life of self-sufficiency. We have a responsibility to the most vulnerable among us, the young and the aged, those who are sick and those who live with disabilities, and that is to protect them, nurture them and empower them to overcome all obstacles. And we have a responsibility to future generations, to leave them a world that is safe, an environment that is healthy, an economy that is strong and a government that is honest (Ethics Reform! Oh, goody! I wanna see results.)
---
Purpose Driven Life part of speech:

Over the last 30 years, because of the grace of God, I have learned my purpose. It is not to build a majority political party, nor to hold power for the sake of holding power, it is to build a Texas of limitless possibility. And it starts with our children.

Channeling John Lenin part of speech:

Imagine the possibilities in a Texas where every child is educated, every graduate has access to a good job, every life deemed precious.

Imagine the possibilities in a Texas blind to color, class and ethnicity, where no one is invalidated because of their heritage, but valued because of their humanity.

Imagine the possibilities in a Texas where every man, woman and child is able to put behind the past, to grab hold of their promise, to press on to be who they were created to be.

Bridge to nowhere part of speech because this ain't happening:

We have our differences. But, we cannot bridge those differences as long as we live in the past. Reconciliation requires forgiveness and a forward-looking spirit.

"I live in a Texas where Craddick is not Speaker of the House" part of speech:

Texas is better off when Republicans and Democrats work together. Our potential is too vast to be spoiled by a politics leavened with partisanship. There is so much we must do together.

Together, we must work to make our border more secure and our neighborhoods safer.

Together, we must find solutions to the high rate of the uninsured and to the high cost of health insurance.

Together, we must commit to excellence in higher education as it prepares the workforce of the future.

Together, we must ensure that property tax relief is not only substantial, but long-lasting.

Together, we must pass budget reforms that protect the taxpayers.

And together, we must engage in a debate and a dialogue characterized by civility and consensus.
----
The world is watching. Once again, let’s show them what it means to live with one another, to love one another and to be Texans.

There you have it. Let's hold hands, sing Kum Bah Yah, and divert our eyes from what is not getting done in the Texas Legislature this session.

Under The Sea Themed Inaugural To Move Indoors

Rick Perry's 10 a.m. oath of office ceremony has moved indoors, apparently for the first time in 50 years. It will be in the House Chambers which has been hastily decorated at the last minute in an Under The Sea theme to be all matchy-matchy with Anita Perry's mermaid dress for tonight's inaugural ball.

The forecast in Austin is for freezing rain, so things should go swimmingly.

Storm Blog!

Courageous, heroic workers BRAVED the 40 degree temperatures and drizzling rain downtown today as reported in the Houston Chronicle. Photo of these Fearless Five, as they will forever be known, below:


Muse also ventured out for errands, lunch with a friend and to a movie. The biggest danger was posed by the scaredy-cats on 59 driving 20 miles per hour in - for real - 40 degree weather and a slight rain.

I braved the weather so I could bring Storm Blog! to you.

Anita Perry To Wear Pink Mermaid Dress For Inaugural Ball

. . . and, to look like a Chinese lantern and a beehive. She's picking right up where Shelley Sekula-Gibbs left off! Anita Perry is trying to be the new fashion standard bearer for musings. What a nice surprise to start my day. This from the Austin American Statesman:

When first lady Anita Perry arrives for inaugural festivities Tuesday, her attire will be as special as the day.

Noted dress designers Douglas Hannant and Robert Danes have designed her 2007 Texas inaugural attire, from a Hannant suit she will wear during the swearing-in ceremony to an evening gown by Danes that she'll don for the Inaugural Ball.

"The originality and creativity of these two fashion leaders is apparent in the elegant designs they have produced," the first lady said in a statement. "Robert and Douglas have worked to incorporate my own style in the impeccable details of these masterpieces, and I have enjoyed working with such remarkable and talented designers."

The Inaugural Ball gown is a strapless corset in silk crepe-back satin and silk organza. The skirt of the gown is a mermaid silhouette cut in interlocking layers of organza fabric.

Color: coral-tinted strong pink.

"We have sewn over 100 unique pieces of organza together in an abstract version of the honeycomb style found in Chinese paper lanterns," said Danes, a San Antonio native. "The combination of the satin draping in the bodice and this honeycomb construction results in a design that is both futuristic and feminine."

The first lady's day suit, created by Hannant, is a three-button jacket with a straight skirt, according to event organizers.

"In contrast to the full-skirted look, this is a new take on the classic suit jacket and slim skirt, fashioned out of richly textured tweed with sequins," the Inaugural Committee said in a statement. "The silhouette is straight down and veered away from a nipped-in waist. The inside of the jacket is lined with silk charmeuse."

Hannant's designs are simple in shape but rich in fabrication and texture, the statement said.

I'll withhold final judgment until I see the actual outfits, but a mermaid shape dress with that much organza does not - on paper - sound attractive for someone Anita Perry's age. The part about the top of the dress being a black corset is particularly alarming. So, picture the pink parade outfit above, but with the corset top being black. Everyone is alarmed as I am, right?

The weather in Austin tomorrow is supposed to be very wet, so, upon further contemplation, perhaps a mermaid dress is perfect.

Bush's Lies - All Of Them - Right Here In One Place

This is exhaustive, but quick. It would be funny, if it weren't so sad. How can one person f**k up so much? Do what I do and blame all of those who voted for Bush in 2004 for "the surge", for its inevitable failure and for the yet to be imagined apocalyptic consequences for the Middle East. Bush voters, I blame every single one of you. This is a case of vote for him once, you are stupid. Vote for him twice, you are the cause of all of the death and destruction.

Season Six Of 24 Begins Tonight! Dave Barry 24 Blog Alert!

FINALLY! When we last saw Jack Bauer, he had been whisked away never to be seen again (OK, temporarily kidnapped for three hours tops, is my prediction.) Two hour premier tonight and two MORE hours tomorrow night! Here's what you might not know. Dave Barry writes a 24 blog. He liveblogs it and it is hilarious. You can thank me now and prepare to give me wheelbarrows full of cash as gifts later, because this is the best insider tip I've ever given you. And, what you need to know is that you MUST click on his links, particularly the ones about Edgar still being dead. Just do it. I swear to God, I hope Audrey is in season 6 because Barry's Audrey comments will make you weep, they are so funny.

Here's some of his January 12 blog entry to give you a taste of what you don't want to miss. As Barry always says, GET READY:

January 12, 2007

24 PREMIERE ADVISORY

As you know -- because you have been changing your underpants on an hourly basis for two weeks now and are experiencing third-degree chapping -- the new season of 24 -- Season Six -- begins Sunday and Monday nights with a special two-night, four-hour premiere.

When last we saw Jack Bauer, he had been kidnapped by evil Chinese communist evildoers, who no doubt intended to kill him, until they found out that he had signed a three-year contract, void if he was dead. (Speaking of which, Edgar still is.) After viewing the trailer for the new season, we know a few things about the plot:

1. Evil terrorists will be committing evil acts of terrorism.

2. Jack will shoot and stab them.

In other words, it will be the same plot as always. Good! That is why we tune in. As for the cast, we note a few interesting wrinkles:

-- The President of the United States is now the brother of Deceased President AllState Insurance, and he looks a lot like Gary Payton of your World Champion Miami Heat, the team that kicked the butt of the Dallas Mavericks and their billionaire owner, Mark Cuban. .

-- One of his key advisors is the lawyer weenie from Ally McBeal. He is also, according to judi, a numbers weenie from the cast of the show NUMB3RS who is going into space. So he is one busy weenie.

-- Chloe has a new hair color, but we still love her very much.

This blog will be tuning in Sunday night to watch the show along with literally billions of other people all over the solar system; we invite you to join us here. Be sure to stay tuned afterward when the Amazing Steve™ posts his summary of the show, which is almost always better than the actual show. (At least we assume Steve will be doing this.)

As for the Monday episodes: This blog will be traveling Monday evening. We will try to get to a TV in time to watch the third and fourth episodes along with the rest of you, but in case we don't make it, we'll pre-post something here so you can comment.

That is all for now. Get ready

Aaron Pena Comments On The Speaker's Race

I've been patiently and anxiously awaiting Rep. Pena's commentary on the vote for Speaker. He hasn't posted anything on his blog since January 4th when he predicted a Craddick win. e not only voted for Craddick, but made one of the seconding speeches for his nomination. Ouch. I found a little morsel from Pena over at Burkablog, in the comments: This was the first speaker's race waged over the internet. I enjoyed your perspective Paul. Your posts were widely read by the members. It certainly made for interesting conversation and debate. This is actually a little bit more of a bombshell than it sounds like at first read. Burka was mentioned on the House floor during the Speaker debate as being supportive of Geren's amendment that the votes by each member be revealed right away. Burka was in the House gallery, and to his credit, admits that it was like one of those dreams where you find yourself running naked down the street, when all eyes in the House turned his way the minute that Hartnett said that. There has been a lot of discussion as to if blogs, and other internet sources (Kronberg), played a kingmaker role in the selection of Craddick as speaker. Do the legislators think that what Burka says is the gospel and that when he called it for Craddick, it was all over? Almost sounds like it, doesn't it.When you read Pena's comment and digest all of the information about last minute switching of some legislators from one camp to the other, you have to conclude, that indeed, in part, we had election of Speaker by internet.

Gov. Perry Waxes Eloquently On Property Tax Cuts

Under the category "no shit Sherlock", Governor Goodhair had this to say about the fabulousness that is the property tax reduction:

The earlier tax swap included phased-in reductions in school operating taxes. Many homeowners, however, found their first round of cuts all but wiped out by rising property values.

Muse raises hand when a show of hands is called for of those whose rising property values wiped out the promised tax cut (I saw those commercials, Rick Perry). It's really super great to think my house is worth as much as is on my appraisal, but it was a little startling to get that in the mail. Maybe I should send Perry my posts on my rising insurance rates and he can comment to the Chronicle on the debacle that is insurance reform in Texas. Oh, and maybe a word from him about rising electricity costs. I could understand if my rates on both were rising at the same rate as inflation, but they are rising at the "rate of the Texas Legislature", some sort of "line my pockets with lobbyist money" rate that enrages consumers.

Craddick and Pitts Pledges Revealed

Basically, the final vote for Speaker, if Pitts had stayed in the race, would have fallen along the same lines as the vote to table Rep. Geren's amendment to reveal the votes for Speaker only after committee assignments were made. A "yea" vote was a vote to table (and make the votes public on the day of voting); a "nay" vote was a vote to table (and to delay the release of how members voted): Yeas — Anderson; Aycock; Bailey; Berman; Bohac; Bonnen; Branch; Brown, B.; Callegari; Chavez; Chisum; Christian; Cook, B.; Corte; Crabb; Craddick; Creighton; Crownover; Darby; Davis, J.; Delisi; Deshotel; Driver; Dukes; Dutton; Eissler; England; Flores; Flynn; Gattis; Giddings; Goolsby; Guillen; Hamilton; Hancock; Hardcastle; Harless; Harper-Brown; Hartnett; Hilderbran; Hill; Howard, C.; Isett; Jackson; Keffer; King, P.; King, S.; King, T.; Kolkhorst; Krusee; Laubenberg; Lucio; Macias; Madden; McClendon; Miller; Morrison; Mowery; Murphy; Orr; Otto; Parker; Patrick; Paxton; Peña; Phillips; Puente; Riddle; Rose; Smith, W.; Smithee; Solomons; Swinford; Taylor; Truitt; Turner; Van Arsdale; Woolley; Zedler; Zerwas.

Nays — Allen; Alonzo; Anchia; Bolton; Burnam; Castro; Cohen; Coleman; Cook, R.; Davis, Y.; Dunnam; Eiland; Elkins; Escobar; Farabee; Farias; Farrar; Frost; Gallego; Garcia; Geren; Gonzales; Gonzalez Toureilles; Haggerty; Heflin; Hernandez; Herrero; Hochberg; Hodge; Homer; Hopson; Howard, D.; Hughes; Jones; Kuempel; Latham; Leibowitz; Mallory Caraway; Martinez; Martinez Fischer; McCall; McReynolds; Menendez; Merritt; Miles; Moreno; Naishtat; Noriega; Oliveira; Olivo; Ortiz; Pickett; Pierson; Pitts; Quintanilla; Raymond; Ritter; Rodriguez; Smith, T.; Strama; Straus; Talton; Thompson; Vaught; Veasey; Villarreal; Vo; West.

The vote was 80-68, revealing that Pitts did not have enough votes to become Speaker. After a few more votes on amendments, Pitts dropped out of the race. The entire opening day proceedings can be found here, including a record of all votes and text of all speeches.

Democrat Patrick Rose Hearts Tom Craddick

Here is the seconding speech that Rep. Patrick Rose (D-Hays County) made in favor of the nomination of Tom Craddick as Speaker of the House:

I stand before you today as a proud democrat, and I look forward to one day casting my vote for a democratic speaker of the Texas House, but today is not that day.

Speaker Craddick has been criticized for not working well with democrats over the last four years. And I think that criticism has validity. On the other hand, we as democrats could have done a better job of working with the speaker and I hope, as we go forward, that we come together, and learn to work better with one another, to make this process one that belongs to each of us, a process that we can all be proud of.

We have been through four, tough years. And we have made difficult decisions. Where we once faced a $10 billion deficit, today we have a surplus. Where we once faced a school finance court order, we now have a fair and broad based business tax. To get where we are today took leadership.

There have been winners and there have been losers, and it has not been easy. But I believe that the house has learned and grown over these last four years. I believe that Speaker Craddick has learned and grown over these last four years. And I believe in this house. Because I believe in this house, because I believe we have learned, because I believe that it took leadership to get from where we were to where we are today, I second the nomination of Tom Craddick for speaker of our Texas House.

Well, I disagree with nearly everything he said. And, Tom Craddick has not grown. He is still a short man. What a slap in the face to the Democratic caucus and to the 27 who stayed together right through to the end.

The 27 Democrats Who Voted "NO!" For Craddick

The final vote for Craddick was 121-27. Here are the Democrats who voted "no": Roberto Alonzo, D-Dallas Lon Burnam, D-Fort Worth Joaquin Castro, D-San Antonio Garnet Coleman, D-Houston Yvonne Davis, D-Dallas Jim Dunnam, D-Waco Craig Eiland, D-Galveston Juan Escobar, D-Kingsville Joe Farias, D-San Antonio Jessica Farrar, D-Houston Pete Gallego, D-Alpine Juan M. Garcia, D-Corpus Christi Ana Hernandez, D-Houston Abel Herrero, D-Corpus Christi Terri Hodge, D-Dallas David Leibowitz, D-San Antonio Barbara Mallory Caraway, D-Dallas Trey Martinez Fischer, D-San Antonio Borris Miles, D-Houston Paul Moreno, D-El Paso Rick Noriega, D-Houston Dora Olivo, D-Rosenberg Solomon Ortiz Jr., D-Corpus Christi Richard Raymond, D-Laredo Eddie Rodriguez, D-Austin Senfronia Thompson, D-Houston Marc Veasey, D-Fort Worth I will personally thank Rick Noriega next time I see him. Let's play "which Democrats are missing from this list?" Ellen Cohen, for one.

What He (Dunnam) Said

Representative Jim Dunnam, leader of the Democratic caucus, wrote this letter tonight to the 54 Democrats that voted "nay" on the motion to table Rep. Geren's amendment that would have allowed the votes for speaker to remain secret until committee assignments were made. This 80-68 vote revealed the votes that Pitts had. If only six of the 15 Democrats who voted with Craddick would have stuck with the Democratic caucus, we would have a new Speaker tonight. Thanks to Kuffner for the letter. Dear Colleague, When Tom Craddick stepped onto the House floor today, he honestly did not know if he would be elected Speaker. That alone is something that would have been deemed unbelievable four years ago, and indeed even four months ago. If only six members had voted differently, we would have different leadership in the House. Unfortunately, that 45-minute delay on Rep. King's Point of Order probably resulted in at least that many votes being flipped.

I am proud that House Democrats stood together today, committed to changing the direction of Texas - something voters in 2006 stated quite loudly that they wanted. House Democrats said enough to the four years of dictatorial rule and policy that threw hundreds of thousands of children off CHIP, increased tuition for all Texans, cut funding for public schools and put the special interests of the wealthiest Texans above Texas families.

The decision of whether or not the House would have a new Speaker has always been a Republican decision. There are 81 Republicans in the Texas House and, not surprisingly, a Republican Speaker. House Republicans had an opportunity to choose a new direction for the State of Texas, but they chose the status quo.

Tom Craddick obtained the Speaker's gavel in 2002 through illegal corporate money from TRMPAC and a redistricting map that was designed to elect 100 Republicans. Since that time, House Democrats have gained seven net seats, and we are poised to play a strong constructive role in the shaping of good policy this session.

My goal is for House Democrats play a positive role in shaping policy this session. I hope Mr. Craddick does become more inclusive and allow members to just vote their conscience and district. But that decision is solely in his hands.

Today was just the first round this session in our fight for our constituents and the people of the State of Texas. Once again we proved that we will stand up for our convictions and principles, regardless of threats or promised rewards.

Thank you for your courage, your trust and your friendship. We will never win every vote on the floor, but when House Democrats stand up and fight together, Texas can never lose.

Sincerely,

Jim Dunnam

Why Judging The Democraddicks On The Totality Of Their Votes This Session Is Not Enough

Some Democrats will say that the Democraddicks shouldn't be judged on this one vote alone for Speaker. That we have to wait and watch during the session and judge them on the totality of their votes. BUT, many of the bills we want them to vote on won't even come to the floor for a vote! So, we need to judge them on the votes they get to cast under Craddick and the voted THEY DON'T GET TO CAST. This was my point in my very first post advocating for Anybody But Craddick. My point has been the same from the beginning - a vote for Craddick, meant these dems do not care about all we hold dear. Would Pitts have let ethics reform, expanded health care, real improvements in public education, etc. come to a vote? I don't know and we won't ever know. Actually this is exactly what I said: The vote for Texas Speaker of the House on Tuesday, January 9th will be the most important vote taken at the Legislature this session. It's the first order of business for the House. If Craddick wins, there will be no increased funding for education, no expansion of children’s health insurance, no ethics reform and continued corrupt, reactionary special-interest rules. If he loses, which seems more likely with McCall announcing for the race, then these and other good things are likely to happen. And, I still believe it. Craddick is a known entity and it is because of him that our ethics situation is in a criminal state, school personnel lost health care coverage, vouchers are still on the table, kids lost coverage under CHIP, we had the redistricting mess, insurance reform is no reform at all, etc, etc. Etc, etc, etc. This was THE most important vote and they failed us. As I said in a previous post, it was very upsetting to hear Pena and Rose second Craddick's nomination particularly with Rose making a gutless comment about his fellow Democrats. His comment bears repeating, so that it will sink in:

"Democrats could have done more to work with the speaker."

Capitol Annex has the names of the Democrats who escorted Craddick back into the House after his win, so that he can continue his reign of terror: Norma Chavez (D-El Paso), Eddie Lucio III, Ryan Gullien, Patridk Rose (D-Dripping Springs), Ruth Jones McClendon (D-San Antonio), Helen Giddings (D-Dallas). I'm not in a big conciliatory mood to give these folks a free pass right now. Why? Because the vote for the Geren amendment to allow the votes for Speaker to remain secret until committee assignments were made, failed 80-68. You can see right there that if only six of the Democraddicks had voted with the Pitts coalition (including 54 true Democrats), we would have a new Speaker tonight.

Caption This: What Is Pitts Saying To Craddick?

I think he's saying, "We SO pulled this off. Just like we planned. Me and you, with a little help from Burka. Good grief, we gamed him. Can I come over and sit on one of your fancy toilets?"

Democraddicks Pena and Rose Second Craddick Nomination

Patrick Rose had this to say:

"Democrats could have done more to work with the speaker."

I really don't see how Democrats everywhere are going to forget that. Remember the Alamo! Remember Patrick Rose! And, how he not only seconded Craddick's nomination, voted for Craddick, but also slammed his fellow Democrats in the process. I don't have quotes from Aaron Pena's seconding speech, but I remember he basically said his constituents didn't expect him to "tilt at windmills." Let's get ready for 2008.

A Capitol Annex Post: Hartnett & Talton Sparring

Vince had a crash at Capitol Annex. He sent me a post as to the last part of the House debate before they went idle to research the latest point of order: Geren is up for a PI: isn't it true in the 79th rules that each member is required to vote from the desk except those at the front? SOS: Yes Amendment 1 to HR 35 covers when the public sees the ballots. Now they are talking about secret ballots. Hartnett: Said Paul Burka has endorsed letting people see the ballots after the vote. His amendment is for a public vote disclosed immediately rather than five weeks later. Hill: Asks him to yield. Will be that results disclosed before another ballot? Hartnett: Yes. Talton: Under your amendment, when ballots released? Hartnett: actual ballots to chief clerk, technically, for further disposition by this body but would assume public record. Talton: Under line 18, 19, 20, release as soon as possible. Hartnett: Yes. Talton: We can assume today is that correct? Hartnett: Yes, the tallies will be released immediately. Talton: If a person was concerned about members in this house would be treated do you think fairest way would be after committee assignments? Hartnett: Well, never had that. Talton: Never had a speaker's race like this. Talton: Do you think yours is the fairest way or fairest to members to have it after committee assignments. Hartnett: Perfectly fair. I have a right to know how other members vote and my constituents do... Talton: Don't disagree but it's when. Talton: If concerned about protection of members, isn't it better after committee assignments? Hartnett: Heart of this is people who have double pledged and want to have their cake and eat it. Talton: Don't you think it is better to protect the members. Hartnett: I personally have no interest in protecting double pledges. Talton: Don't you think it would be better after committee assignments? Hartnett: Time we show our votes today. Talton: You want to show those people out for what they are and you don't care what happens to those folks? Hartnett: NO but I don't think that outweighs the [public]. Talton: Don't you care about the body? Hartnett: Balancing of the needs... Martinez Fisher: Without the current rule, could I tell whoever who I voted for for speaker. Hartnett: You can say whatever you want. Martinez Fisher: You don't need your amendment to tell people how you voted? Hartnett says no word is official unless it is in the journal. Martinez Fisher: Nothing stops anyone from telling anyone how they voted for speaker. Branch: Your approach seeks for disclosure of names promptly or immediately. Hartnett: After each vote Branch: The other approach would delay that to some point. Hartnett: Correct. Branch: So we could ask for a lot of votes to be delayed so we don't have to deal with the consequences of our votes? Hartnett: Seems to me we could. Branch: Comes down to political courage... Hartnett: That's an aspect of it. Moeno: Really, this is a different election that we've had, would you agree? That this is one of a kind? The only two people who have experienced this are me and Rep. Craddick. We are the only ones. No one on this floor has ever experienced elections like this in 43 years. Hartnett: Take your word for it. Moreno: Neither side is attempting to hijack anybody's vote but what we are trying to do is make sure the process and the member is protected for the same reason we have this election is because we believe we were not treated fairly in the past [applause] Hochberg: You said in conversation with Talton that the only purpose of delaying is to protect what you called "double pledgers." Why would it be limited to that? It seems to me that the fear of retribution or unfair treatment wouldn't be limited to double pledgers but to anybody who found themselves on what became the wrong side. Don't know which side that's going to be but isn't it much broader...isn't really about a lot of members and a lot of districts. Hartnett: I hear what you are saying and both sides have solid lists and it is down to a handful of people. Hochberg: I haven't seen those lists and don't know if you or I would believe them if we saw them. Is it inherent in your proposal or your logic that if you are on the side that loses that you deserve to be back benched and not deserve to participate fully in this body? So we know that those people are appropriately punished. Hartnett: This quickly gets into some major political... Hochberg: Not attribute that to one side or another, don't know if it matters in terms of what we are discussing here...try to get to something where house will work in best possible way regardless. Hartnett: We have to get back to reality and that is what we are talking about on the amendment has never been done before. Secondly, it would create all kinds of precedents for this body to hide its votes in other circumstances. I would love on a lot of tough votes to delay them for a month, two months, three months after an election, but that's too greedy, delay them so the hoopla and uproar and attention fades and the impact is dissipated as far as my personal career. I thick the public is entitled to know right away. Hochberg: wouldn't those scenarios be in violation of the constitution which limits us to secret ballot for election only. Hartnett: Doesn't prohibit us, if we want to as a body, we can defer the release of any vote we have with an amendment to the constitution. Jackson: do you think integrity of house stands in balance? Hartnett: Hard to cast aspersions on my colleagues. Jackson: Integrity based on word of members? Hartnett: Personal integrity. Jackson: Why are people worried about people knowing how they voted? Moved adoption of Hartnett amendment. Geren's amendment to the amendment. Geren: This amendment allows, in my mind, speaker protection amendment if speaker doesn't know how every member voted until after he lays out the committees. Press, members, etc. can't get on him. Speaker can say didn't know how he voted anyway. More idle time...

To Jim Pitts: Thinking You Have Enough Votes Is Not Enough

This just doesn't sound all that encouraging. Via the Houston Chronicle, Pitts had this to say when asked if he had enough votes to win: "I think so," the Waxahachie lawmaker said. "We worked all night, but we have it done. We have a large majority of people who are supporting us." He "thinks so." Can we hear something a little more decisive Rep. Pitts? And, it really doesn't matter if the majority is small or large, it's, you know, getting the 50% + 1 of the votes today that counts. I mean, more is better for all sorts of reasons, but it's all about a majority of votes. Period. It sounds like he has the votes of the Democratic caucus: After leaving the Democratic caucus meeting a short time later, Pitts added, "We're going to have a change in the House."

Reporters standing outside the door could hear Democratic lawmakers applauding Pitts several times.

OK, that's more decisive. Senfronia Thompson had said she was still considering voting "present, not voting," so I wonder if she is with Pitts or not. Craddick spokesmodel Alexis had this to say: "We know we have the votes to win," she said. "We're very confident." More: Late Monday, each maintained he had secured the necessary votes to win, but Pitts seemed to be struggling. On the eve of the election, he did not appear at a reception his camp organized for supporters and friends from his district.

Pitts loyalists said everyone was still working the phones "like crazy."

"He's shoring up members and picking up where he can, so that's where he's focusing," one member said.

Between 10 and 12 House members, including Rep. Joe Pickett, D-El Paso, apparently had not committed to either candidate.

Pickett expected a floor fight that will last several rounds.

"It's going to be an interesting, historic day," Pickett said.

One of the expected fights will involve a secret ballot.

"If there's a secret ballot, Craddick loses. He has to fight that first and foremost," Pickett said.

Speaker's Race Round Up

First order of business - you can watch the vote for Speaker today at the Live House Chamber Stream (I know, that sounds sorta gross) on the Texas House website. The House convenes at noon today and the first order of business is the election of the Speaker of the House. Well, actually the first order of business will be to adopt the rules on how the vote will be carried out. In secret? Roll call? Paper ballot? With the yes/no buttons that "malfunction"? Vince will be liveblogging Opening Day. I look forward to his commentary. I discovered Capitol Annex during last year's special session and he always has a great take on what's happening as it happens. Vince says that Eddie Lucio, III is on Team Craddick (surprise!) Good grief. During the dead of night on Saturday, ten Democrats marched or snuck into Craddick's private party for supporters at the Austin Club. There was a videographer at the scene who caught them on tape. It looks like they are going in to visit with the Godfather. The ten are: Joe Deshotel, Kino Flores, Ryan Guillen, Aaron Pena, Helen Giddings, Sylvester Turner, Dawnna Dukes, Ruth Jones McClendo, Norma Chavez, Patrick Rose. Kuffner points to the fact that 10-12 reps are apparently still on the fence, and Senfronia Thompson may be one of them. She is contemplating doing the "present, not voting" thing. What happened to the block of Dems supporting Pitts? I have an uncomfortable feeling that the tip I got that there is way more support for Craddick than has been publicized, may be true. Why publicly contemplate a non-vote unless this thing is over and you don't want to be on record as voting for a Republican speaker? Burka claims that one Republican committee chair has gone over to the Pitts camp. He also says the math is in Craddick's favor. Bay Area Houston reminds us that this is a race for the two $1000 toilets in the Speaker's apartment. Oh, and don't forget Rep. Lon Burnam has told Ronnie Earle that "I believe he is using his public office for his own personal monetary gain" in regards to a "legislate-lease-line Tom Craddick's pockets" deal. And, the Texas Ethics Commission recently accepted a citizen's complaint that alleges Craddick used his campaign cash for personal use and failed to properly report political expenditures made by credit card. Oh, and the TRMPC stuff. Yikes. I know a min-Tom DeLay when I see him. All votes for Craddick today are in support of this type of behavior. B & B points to the terrific Houston Chronicle article about how the big-moneyed lobbyists win if Craddick wins today. We'll know soon, dead birds or no dead birds.

The Chair of the Fort Bend Republican Party Is An Exterminator And Acts Like One

I bet people who are not from Fort Bend County don't realize that Gary Gillen, Fort Bend Republican Chair, is an exterminator by trade. I think he'd like to carry over that theme and be a mini-Tom DeLay, a true "Bug Man", in his efforts to wield power - over his own executive committee.

There's a whole big intra-party mess he's created by taking over the main fundraiser for the Party and putting it into the hands of his own PAC. The executive committee of the Party (all precinct chairs) is furious over this and recently sued him for tortious interference (wrongful interference) into Party business. Gillen responded by suing them. It amuses me that they are getting the trial lawyers involved and doing exactly what they whined and cried about the Texas Democratic Party doing to take care of Tom DeLay's power plays last summer.

You can read all about it at Fort Bend Now. The in-fighting has been going on since at least early December.

The culture of fear and intimidation in politics was fed, nurtured and came to maturation under the domination of Fort Bend's own Tom DeLay. Tom Craddick learned those tactics well and is a master at the game.

It's not clear if Gillen can play the same game and end up with the kind of power he obviously wants, but he's sure trying. It's amusing that what he did to get what he wants was to form a PAC, a move right out of the DeLay/Craddick playbook.

It's fun to watch him try to exterminate his own executive committee, I will say that. Stay tuned and keep popping the popcorn.

Nick Lampson Is Sworn In As The Congressman For The 22nd District (Photo!)

Sweet! There's Nick in the red tie looking very happy. I'm happy, too! Yesterday was a good day for women, a good day for Democrats, a good day for TX-22 and a great day for our country.

Look! There's Nick!

Nick Lampson was the topic of conversation among all of my friends in TX-22 today (and THEIR friends and loved ones in far off places) on the phone, by email and over dinner. There was the interview before the vote for Speaker, the shot of him on C-SPAN smiling and clapping when Nancy Pelosi talked about the "pay as you go" system of fiscal responsibility and the floor speech on ethics reform in the afternoon session.

The shot of him smiling over "pay-go" was especially sweet to me because I called many, many voters in TX-22 in May and June talking to them about Nick Lampson's commitment to fiscal responsibility. To see him there in the House today, getting sworn in . . . very special. To see him get to participate in the issues that are important to him and our District - fantastic!

Rep. Aaron Pena Predicts The Next Speaker Of The House

My friend, The Rep., says it will be Craddick. Remember, this is the guy I call "The Seer" because he's predicted some pretty complicated things correctly. I caught him in a "hail Mary pass" post yesterday that he quickly took down. My guess was that he thought the McCall-Pitts vote combo was a 20 seconds left to play, desperation pass to get to the end zone. I wondered out loud if Pena, by putting that post up and taking it down, was trying to decide at the last minute which team to be on. I wasn't all that impressed with the Pitts-McCall press conference at 4 p.m. today until Pitts unequivocally said he had enough votes to win (you can view the entire press conference here.) He asserted the race was over. Pitts and McCall have stuck their necks out to help dethrone Craddick. By combining their pledges, is it enough to get the job done? I'm hoping Rep. Pena has finally made a wrong prediction.

Here's Who I'm Watching For Speaker Of The House

Nancy Pelosi.

Swearing in today at 11 a.m.

Watch it on CSPAN. Set the DVR!

A great photo of a great moment from November 7th.

Not A Pretty Picture In The Speaker's Race

Yikes. That would be Jim Pitts on the left and Tom "Little Napolean" Craddick on the right. Umm. For once, I am speechless, but those of you who know me know what I want to say. Scary.

So, what will Thursday bring? Pitts and McCall are supposedly joining forces, with all pledges going to Pitts. McCall's Democrats weren't consulted (what? they thought they had a say in this?) And from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram:

(Craddick) Spokeswoman Alexis DeLee said she was unaware of any agreement that would lead to the House leader’s ouster when the 80th Legislative session begins Tuesday. (Oh, Alexis, honey, not ANOTHER thing you were not aware of. How much does Craddick pay you to be clueless?)

And, this:

“Last I heard, the people that were supporting Craddick were solid,” said state Rep. Rob Eissler, R-The Woodlands. (when was that? five minutes ago? you gotta keep up.)

Another Republican chimes in:

State Rep. Todd Smith, a Euless Republican and a Craddick critic, said he plans to attend Pitts’ news conference, scheduled for 4 p.m. in the Capitol.

“I’m voting for Jim because I think he’ll be a good speaker,” Smith said, “not because he does or does not have the votes to win.” (apparently this rep. currently serves on the Endangered Caribou Committee)

Democrats squeak (speak):

“Democrats believe McCall would be a good speaker,” said state Rep. Garnet Coleman, R-Houston. “I don’t think Democrats have had a good opportunity as a whole to discern whether they think Pitts falls into that same category.”

State Rep. Lon Burnam, D-Fort Worth, said either would be an improvement from the status quo.

“I find a great deal of satisfaction in the notion that Tom Craddick will not be speaker anymore,” said Burnam, the only House member who voted against Craddick when he became speaker in 2003.

I would SWEAR that Aaron Pena had a "Hail Mary" post on his blog today that quickly disappeared. Rep, what ARE you thinking? That you want to be on the team that catches that pass near the goal line?

There either will or will not be a press conference at 4 pm Thursday with McCall and Pitts.

Talton is or is not the kingmaker. And, will he bring cookies?

Stay tuned.

In the spirit of ABC, I will say, it's fine with me to have another unattractive white man as Speaker of the House. Did I say that out loud?

How The Insurance Companies Are Fooling You

Because you get letters like this, after the Republican legislators go ape over insurance deregulation, and you think, "yay, my insurance rates are dropping! I'm getting options!" When really, you, the consumer, are getting screwed without knowing it! Dear muse, blah, blah, blah As you may know, homeowners insurance rates in Texas have significantly increased in recent years and some companies are no longer offering insurance in the state. Until recently, Texas insurance companies were permitted by law to only offer the homeowners policies developed by the Texas Department of Insurance. Texans had almost no flexibility in choosing a policy that meets their specific needs. As a result, all policyholders were charged higher premiums because of the universal coverage for mold, slab and water damage, regardless of their individual needs or desires for this type of coverage. Policy revisions effective upon the upcoming renewal give you far more flexibility in choosing what is needed for your particular situation. More blah, blah, blah. Well, my "needs and desires" are that I have the same coverage I had with those "higher premiums" I used to be charged. Because I used to have water, foundation and sewer coverage and it cost 30% less! And, if I were to put my mold coverage back in, my old policy would cost 130% less than my current policy!! I long for the good old days. And, for truth in insurance marketing. And for an era when "inflexibility" was all the rage. Did you know that insurance companies are just now discovering we have hurricanes on the Gulf Coast? And, that they will need to drop coverage and increase rates because of it. Shh. No one tell them that sometimes there are house fires.

My Homeowners Insurance Battle, Continued

Please, be prepared that if you call about your homeowners insurance, one thing will lead to another and you'll be on the phone half the day. Part of it on hold, part of it a battle with the nice person on the other end of the line. I FOOLISHLY went to the USAA website to take ANOTHER look at my homeowners insurance rates and I was asked to update my home characteristics. So, I did, because they had me down for too many features. I took off a bathroom (from three to two), decreased one of the two remaining bathrooms to "normal" rather than "custom", changed from "custom kitchen" to "normal" and took off a thing about how some of my floors are hardwood. But, then it wouldn't let me save my changes. And, thinking - FOOLISHLY - that my changes should probably decrease the rebuild cost of my home, I called USAA to get them to help me make the changes. So, the nice lately walked me through the whole survey again and made the changes. AND, the new cost to rebuild my home was all of a sudden $20,000 more than it was in August when my policy renewed. The only thing we added that would have improved the house was a new roof I had put on in 2004. In shock, I kept asking HOW this could possibly happen and the answer was "inflation". But, we just reduced significant features of my home! So, why wasn't the house valued higher in August than it was now? AND, she had my rebuild cost higher than my entire property value (resell value) of my home. I explained to her that if I sold my home that would include the land and . . . and . . . and . . . do I really have to explain this to someone who is supposed to know homeowners insurance? I was not happy. Here's what you do, if this happens to you. Tell the nice lady "no way." Let her put you on hold and have her talk to her supervisor. When she tells you that she will leave your rebuild cost the same as it was before, but to be prepared that you may be underinsured, say FINE. Let them think your house has custom bathrooms, hardwood floors and a custom kitchen and revel in the fact that your insurance bill is lower BECAUSE that.

Homeowners Insurance Mayhem - or - Go Hug A Blogger

OK, I decided to wake up from my deep sleep on my homeowners insurance and follow the advice of Bay Area Houston who recently wrote about his USAA coverage. His advice was that in 2007, check your homeowners insurance coverage, particularly to check to see if your coverage for water, sewage and foundation had been dropped without you being aware of it. The mental nudge to me was that he had received a letter in 2003 along with a workbook about the new coverage "options." For various personal reasons, that info came in the mail to me at a time when I was a little overwhelmed and I sort of remembered getting that same stuff - from USAA - and sticking it away in a folder. Plus, to be perfectly honest, at the time, I didn't understand what all of that info was about because the language was pretty slick about "new coverage options, additional coverage options and policy discount information." Hmm. I still can't find any discount info in any of the stuff they sent me. It's either not there or it's miniscule. Well, I found all of that paperwork and sure enough, I am paying about the same amount in premiums for my homeowners insurance as I was before the changes in my policy, but I am getting less coverage. Specifically, mold, water, sewage and foundation coverage became options instead of standard parts of my policy. So, I called up USAA and asked them to add water, sewage and foundation back in. They will (but not until my policy renews in March), to the tune of around $300, increasing my annual premium by about 30%. This is exactly the same story you'll read at that Bay Area Houston link. Seriously, check your homeowners insurance coverage as one of your New Year's resolutions in 2007. You don't want your plumbing pipes to burst and find out that you don't have coverage (good grief, my water heater is in the attic!) You don't want to bear the burden of tens of thousands of dollars in foundation repairs without insurance coverage. Be prepared. It's the foundation coverage that will cost you the most. And, with USAA, there is a $15,000 limit on your new and improved optional foundation coverage. And, while you are at it, hug a blogger, because you are not hearing about this anywhere else.

DiNovo Endorses Weber In HD 29 Runoff

The runoff election in House District 29 between Republicans Mike O'Day and Randy Weber will happen on January 16th. Early voting starts this coming Monday and lasts through next Friday (during the opening week of the 80th Legislature). Dr. Anthony DiNovo, the Democrat in the general election and special election, has endorsed Randy Weber. From DiNovo's website: I would like to add that I am endorsing Randy Weber in the Run-Off. At this moment, my Campaign Manager, Tammy, is working hard (as usual) to help get him elected. I'm hoping that the good people who voted for me could look past the "R" after his name and vote for him based on the fact that not only is he a good guy, but the best candidate for the position. I support him not only because I know him and like him, but because we have a lot of the same views and the same issues. I ask that you give him a chance. Tammy, DiNovo's campaign manager, has her own blog and you can follow her activities and opinions here. It's an interesting read, particularly the insider info on running a campaign.

Running For The Toilet

KVUE Austin has a story about the Craddick's lavish redecorating of the Speaker's apartment and how ironic it would be if someone else ends up living there:

Inside the Texas State Capitol is a living space that's one of a kind. Texas has the only private residence inside a state capitol in the nation, and it's the home of the Speaker of the Texas House when the legislature is in session.

Since 2003, Speaker Tom Craddick and his wife Nadine have called it home.

"It's fun living here; it's unique," Craddick said in an interview with UT's Center for American History.

In Spring 2006, the Craddick's decided to renovate the apartment. But instead of using public money, which usually pays for Capitol improvements, Craddick raised more than $1 million from private donors to pay for the project. The fundraising drew critics.

"The people that are ponying up these large contributions are major commercial interests that have business in front of the state legislature," said Andrew Wheat, of Texans for Public Justice.

The renovations are now nearly complete. But Representative Brian McCall, R-Plano, and Representative Jim Pitts, R-Waxahachie, are both running for speaker next session. If the gavel changes hands, so will the apartment.

"No matter the outcome of the Speaker's election, the apartment renovations will continue until completed," said Chris Cutrone, Craddick spokesman.

The renovations were done to fit the Craddick family's tastes, which for Wheat, highlights the problem of using private money in the first place.

"This apartment doesn't belong to Tom and Nadine Craddick. I shouldn't decide how the speaker's apartment should be refurbished. Neither should Nadine Craddick. The legislature should make those decisions," said Wheat.

The legislature did not get to decide on renovations, but it does decide on its speaker. And if a new speaker is elected, that person will inherit a place custom renovated for the Craddick's.

This sums up to me what is wrong with Craddick and why you have to wonder why any self respecting Democrat would vote for another round with him. Bought, sold and paid for. You get the government you deserve. I think McCall would enjoy the $1000 toilets, I really do. Hat tip to my friends at Eye on Williamson for the link to the story.

Newsflash! Nancy Pelosi Wears HEELS!

GASP! And, Hastert wore SUITS! Good grief. Is this going to go on the entire time Pelosi is Speaker of the House? From the Statesman:

Pelosi is known to wear heels around the Capitol, including a pair of slingbacks she temporarily lost during an evacuation of Congress.

This is in an article about how Pelosi is going to honor Ann Richards as part of a ladies tea during her festivities leading up to her swearing in. So, they relate that story about how Ann said, "Ginger Rogers did everything that Fred Astaire did. She just did it backwards and in high heels," during the 1998 Democratic convention.

Guess what?! I am known to wear heels also! Including a FANTASTIC pair of sexy red slingbacks! They are so memorable that a (guy) friend emailed me last week making sure I was still wearing those. Geez, do we REALLY want a woman in leadership who wears:

a.heels
b. slingbacks

???

It's, it's, it's . . . so FEMALE. I'm SHOCKED. I'm practically appalled.

Coup De Craddick?

The Chronicle reports that McCall and Pitts are in talks to combine their votes for Speaker, ensuring they do what my friend Perry says they have to do which is "if you are going to strike the king, you must kill him." I've mused about this scenario all along, here and all over the place. My thought was that they would do it in kind of a last minute coup. Combining forces would keep the Republicans who want to jump off the Craddick ship happy, because, as far as we know, the majority of Democrats are pledged to McCall and the Republicans wouldn't want the new Speaker to be determined by mostly Democrats. Another scenario is that Jim Keffer, the Republican Ways and Means Chair, might get into the race during this last week. He could solidify all of the anti-Craddick votes around him. One thing is for sure, there is certainly a lot of dissatisfaction around Craddick and if he returns as Speaker, there is going to be a lot of drama around committee assignments and legislation. Did I say drama? I meant "getting rid of enemies." My fellow blogger Aaron Pena continues to be coy about what he thinks will happen. He reports that legislators are alternately amused and angry at the press reports, which apparently are often wrong, about this internal legislative business of picking the next Speaker. Activists believe this to be the most important state wide office not elected by the general public. So, blogs away! Speaking of which, Kuffner has more this morning including some info about another possible contender, Phil King. I wrote about him here and it was not pretty. Also, Eye on Williamson brings up some good points about the latest developments. A good read.

Chris Bell In 2007

I woke up to news of Chris Bell and his plans for 2007 via the Houston Chronicle. He's writing a book, for one thing:

In an interview before he embarked on the book, Bell mixed an earnest discussion of his desire to stay involved politically with a self-deprecating flash of humor about why he decided to take golf lessons.

"I'm reading stuff online, and I respond to e-mails and send out e-mails and talk on the phone and pursue my career opportunities," Bell said, "but for the most part, that isn't a full-time job."

-----

About his professional future, Bell would disclose only generally that he is focusing on law and government relations.

Besides writing the campaign book that he hopes will be out early this year, he said he also is partnering with a chain of weekly newspapers to write commentary on political and social issues.

In the public arena, Bell said he hopes to start a political action committee that would combine with a think tank so he "can continue to weigh in on issues that we talked about during the course of the campaign such as ethics reform and stem cell research and the TAKS (Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills) test."

So, I'm thinking that I can't wait to read Bell's commentary, because I miss hearing him consistently pound on the need to improve education, provide better health care and clean up politics in Texas. I didn't have to wait long. In my inbox this morning was an announcement about a new online political journal called The Texas Blue. Chris Bell wrote a feature for the inaugural edition on the sorry state of ethics in Texas. It's called "No More Pay for Play" and Bell focuses on three areas that need reform:

1. limits on campaign donations
2. a waiting period for legislators turned lobbyists
3. increased enforcement capabilities of the Texas Ethics Commission

Here's the part that resonated with me the most:

What can’t wait is Ethics Commission reform. It’s the great toothless tiger, an enforcement agency with no enforcement powers. If lawmakers are serious about ethics reform, then they will look for ways to make sure that the Ethics Commission has the tools and resources it needs to enforce the rules. Right now, it won’t even issue a subpoena; much less conduct any type of serious investigation. If this doesn’t change, it would make no sense to have campaign finance reform or any other reforms because they would simply go unenforced.

I have a friend that says the Texas Ethics Commission is not only toothless, but gumless. He's right. In examining campaign spending, we've discovered huge holes legislators can walk right through on the spending side of the "cash in and expenditures out" equation. They hide large expenditures behind vague descriptions, mostly without getting caught. Many appear to be using their campaign cash for personal use, which is against the law. At worst, they'll get a fine of a couple of thousand dollars - that they can pay right from their campaign account. There is no real threat of a penalty that would change behavior significantly in the short or long run. About the only way legislators get caught violating ethics rules is when citizens or watchdog groups look into the campaign finance reports and then find someone to file a complaint against the violator. There's no automatic audit of candidate or officeholder reports, no subpoenas of records that would support a complaint and there is a lot of lowering of fines and copping out on making the tough decisions on the ethics rules. Bell is right that increasing the enforcement powers of the Texas Ethics Commission is the top priority with ethics reform. That or abolishing it in favor of something that has teeth.

I couldn't be happier to ring in the new year with Chris Bell as the subject of my first blog post.