B and B

Super Tuesday -- difference in total votes less than half a percent

Not quite all the votes have been counted yet, but the vast majority have been (including 93% in California), so I decided to quickly tally up the total votes for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama yesterday to see if either managed to satisfy my arbitrary criterion for a "winner".  Remember, that arbitrary criterion was a margin in the total number of votes of around 4%.

The results so far (8:40 AM CST), not including Alaska, which I only saw delegate totals for (but it's a small state so won't throw things off by too much):

Hillary Clinton   7.286 million votes
Barack Obama   7.242 million votes

That's a difference of 45,000 votes out of 14.5 million -- less than a third of a percent.

So Super Tuesday, the first near-national primary, was essentially a tie.

The Iowa effect

The hype surrounding the Iowa caucuses went from high to ridiculous last night.  It is even becoming hard for me to resist, particularly since my preferred candidate is the beneficiary.  Yet Obama supporters should not get overconfident, as many more, and much bigger states are still to come.  Things can easily end up very different than they appear right now.  I still believe the real decision point will be on Feb 5 and not before.  There is no reason for Edwards or Clinton supporters to even think of giving up before then, and not even reason to get discouraged.

With the much greater Democratic turnout than in any previous Iowa caucus, some of my concerns about the caucus system were alleviated.  Even still, the number of caucus voters was much smaller than the number of people who will be voting in November, and a small fraction of the total voting age population of the state. 

As Kevin Drum pointed out last night, "It's funny how sometimes you have to wait and see how you actually react to something to know how you're going to react to something."  In this sense, this first official voting of the primary season will likely end up very meaningful to many of us after all, in giving us a significant push towards or away from certain candidates.  It's impossible not to pay attention to that, as it happens inside our own heads. So I overstated things in my previous post.  The immediate results do not matter, but the effect they have on the rest of us is quite real and important.

In Drum's case, the effect seems to have -- temporarily, at least -- knocked him out of his long-held, vague anti-Obama attitude.  In my case, it confirmed that I am an Obama supporter -- a direction I had already been headed strongly in but hadn't fully arrived at.  It also helped me realize that I would be satisfied without Hillary Clinton as the nominee, and so am certainly not in her camp despite my positive feelings about her.

As for Edwards, I would be happy with him as the nominee, yet I feel Obama is a stronger candidate with a much higher upside for the long term.  So I am hoping to see Obama come out on top when the "real action" starts on February 5.

Iowa caucus is a meaningless straw poll. The real action is February 5.

The media and blogger hype surrounding the Iowa caucuses has been as great this year as I have ever seen it.  I find this troubling given how undemocratic the caucus process is, how few people participate, and how unrepresentative those people are of the country as a whole.

No matter who "wins" Iowa (as if getting less than 40% of the vote should even count as winning), we should pay little attention.  We should treat the Iowa caucus results as a curiosity, much like the similarly undemocratic and unrepresentative straw polls a few months back that no one even remembers now.

The real action is on February 5, when a large fraction of the country will have the chance to cast their votes for their party's nominee.

I say this as a nominally undecided Democratic voter who is now leaning towards Barack Obama, but with a soft spot for both John Edwards and Hillary Clinton.

Schmitt: The 'Theory of Change' Primary

Listening to and reading everyday political commentary, from newspapers to blogs to even such allegedly respectable sources as NPR and PBS' Newshour, I have frequently despaired at the lack of interesting insights from the talking heads. 

But then I saw this article at The American Prospect from Mark Schmitt -- "The 'Theory of Change' Primary" -- and my mood brightened.  And my 'undecided' status in the Dem primary wavered.

Texas Progressive Alliance weekly blog roundup

The Texas Progressive Alliance puts together a roundup of members' highlighted posts on a weekly basis.  I've been remiss in not posting these more often.  This week's roundup was compiled by Vince at Capitol Annex.  You may notice a post by your truly buried in there somewhere.

TXsharon says, "YOU SUCK AT&T" and she can only say that because she doesn't use AT&T. Over at Bluedaze she tells why, if you use AT&T for your Internets, you can't say they suck.

Stace at Dos Centavos reports on racism and bigotry committed by a corporation and a UT fraternity.

What's really going on in Irving? Xanthippas at Three Wise Men notes there's more going on in the immigration crackdown than possible profiling and arrests.

CouldBeTrue at South Texas Chisme notes that NOW wants to know why U.S. District Judge Judge Samuel Kent was 'punished' with a 4 month vacation after the investigation into sexual harassment charges concluded.

Criticism of Hillary Clinton's laugh is no laughing matter, so says PDiddie at Brains and Eggs in HRC:LOL.

Might be time for a bit of horsetrading on the floor of the Senate, and one of Texas Kaos' regular diarists, Fake Consultant, has a bit of advice on the subject for Majority Leader Harry Reid in On Larry Craig, And Filibusters or Wanna Make a Trade?

Truth, it has been said, is the first casualty of war. The Republican-Media coalition must have declared war on Social Security, and Blue 19th exposes their lies.

Human rights advocates cheered the Williamson County Commission's vote to sever ties with the operator of the T. Don Hutto holding facility for undocumented immigrants, but Eye On Williamson's wcnews wonders if a battle within the Republican party over the county's share of the profits may have driven their decision.

McBlogger at McBlogger speculates as to the reasons Sharon Keller (Chief Justice of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals) needed to get out of work at 5 on Sept. 25th.

Vince at Capitol Annex tells us about the Texas Conservative Coalition's new Election Integrity Task Force, its new Chairwoman and its likely recommendations.

Peter at B and B writes about the quixotic attempts by a group of environmentally-conscious Republicans to get their chosen political party to care about conservation and stewardship: Republicans for Environmental Protection, all 70 of them, meet in San Antonio.

Off the Kuff looks at the ongoing dispute between the Harris County Appraisal District and the State Comptroller over how commercial properties are taxed.

In Texas Kaos diary, Dallas and Denton drinking water at risk by TxDOT's route selection choice for FM299, Faith Chatham's shares a letter from Highland Village Parents Group activist/homeowner Susie Venable to Mayor Tom Leppert of Dallas regarding the City Water Department's failure to monitor possible MTBE contamination issues. Despite cries of running out of money, TxDOT selected the only route (of 8) which would double project costs by requiring bridges to be built across three tributaries to Lake Lewisville (drinking water source for Denton and Dallas Counties) in the area of the lake already contaminated by MTBE.

Gary at Easter Lemming updates the Pasadena Mayor Manlove resignation and his running for Lampson's seat. There are a lot of happy faces at city hall. Easter Lemming broke the story back on the 22nd.

Trinity Trickey strikes again at The Texas Cloverleaf. This time pro toll road literature features the war on trees and the fight against Angela Hunt by the powers that be. Only in Dallas.

This week's installment of GLBTube at the Houston GLBT Political Caucus Blog is a double feature: first, a sampling of clips related to ENDA; then gay republicans are running ads in order to sabotage hypocritical presidential candidates!

WhosPlayin hammers away on GOP Congressman Michael Burgess for dissing Muslims and being one of 30 boneheads to vote for giving mercenary firms like Blackwater a license to kill.

The Texas Blue looks at how the evangelical social movement isn't playing nice-nice with the Republican Party any longer, and why that is good for America.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson, author, syndicated columnist, political analyst and commentator, who is on a virtual book tour will stop by Para Justicia y Libertad on Oct 11 to discuss his new book The Latino Challenge to Black America: Towards a Conversation Between African-Americans and Hispanics.

Hal at Half Empty counted a Lucky Seven congressional candidates that want to run against Nick Lampson in Texas CD 22. He ROFLs and LMAOs.

The race to oust Texas Senator John Cornyn

The first term of one of Texas' incumbent U.S. Senators, Republican John Cornyn, ends in 2008.  He will be running for re-election no doubt, but his approval rating is far from stellar, and his long record of serving as a yes-man for the Bushies may finally come back to haunt him.  So who will step into this opportunity and  challenge Cornyn in the name of the recently-moribund, but now showing signs of life, Democratic Party in Texas?

Right now, it looks like at least two people will be vying for that chance, though I don't think either have officially made the announcement.  The two are lawyer and Democratic fundraiser Mikal Watts (his first name is pronounced like "Michael," I am told) and state Rep. Rick Noriega.  Neither of them is yet widely known, but that pretty much goes for every single living Democrat in this state, unfortunately.

Watts has a web site already, which includes the following information about him:

Watts’ legal work embodies his commitment to the ideals of justice and fair play that he learned from his mother, who was a teacher and his father, who was an attorney. He also learned the value of hard work and persistence from his mother, who attended law school in Houston, while raising four school-age children in Corpus Christi. As an attorney, Watts has fought with passion and commitment for average working Texans.

Watts’ belief in American ideals such as fairness, justice, liberty and opportunity for all has led him to consider a run for the United States Senate. He believes, like most Texans, that there is a lack of real leadership and accountability in Washington and that it’s time for a change and he is committed to fighting for Texans so they will have opportunities and hope for the future.

Not much hard info there yet, but it's early.

Noriega's "pre-campaign" is being pushed heavily by a number of Texas bloggers, mostly those based in and around Houston, which is where Noriega's district is located.  These bloggers have formed a "Draft Noriega," movement.  And, while Noriega doesn't appear to have a website yet, the draft movement does.  And it includes this info, posted by the grandfather of the Texas blogosphere, Charles Kuffner:

Noriega spent a year in Afghanistan on the front lines of the "war on terror". He's also been deployed to the Texas border to train National Guardsmen on matters of border security. What are the two biggest issues these days? John Cornyn can talk about these things. Rick Noriega has actually been there and done them.

While I don't know too much yet about either Watts or Noriega, on the surface, both appear to be excellent choices with which to replace the worse-than-useless Cornyn in the Senate.  I certainly welcome a contested primary with two worthy candidates such as this.  It could do wonders to continue improving the Democratic Party's fortunes in this state. 

Whoever ends up running against him, Cornyn certainly needs to go.  With Bush gone after 2008, there won't be much for a Bush yes-man to do. 

Developer-supported candidates take over Helotes

So much for my hope that Helotes would turn back the forces of uncontrolled development -- the forces that were the primary contributor to the infamous mulch fire that caused so much distress to that small town so recently.

A contentious, often bitter campaign came to an end Saturday night when all three incumbents up for election — the mayor and two council members — lost to their challengers.

The incumbents, who ran on a pro-preservation slate with the motto "Take Back Helotes," will vacate their seats next week. The challengers, who ran as an unofficial slate that came to be known as the "red party" because of the color of their campaign signs, promised a plan for smart growth and development. They will take their seats after the votes are canvassed May 17.

Tom Schoolcraft beat Jon Allan for mayor, Jeff Ellis defeated Linda Boyer-Owens for City Council Place 3 and Rich Whitehead took the Place 5 council seat from Stuart Birnbaum.

Schoolcraft defeated Allan by 21 votes. Ellis won by 53, and Whitehead took his seat with a 76-vote margin.

Allan said he was surprised and disappointed and the results just "blew him away."

"What do you say? For me, it is really difficult because I worked so hard for this city, and I don't think anybody could have worked so hard and done so much for the city as Linda, Stuart and I did," he said.

"We are pleased with the results, and that's about it," Schoolcraft said Saturday night. "We have a lot of happy constituents out here, and we are having fun celebrating. We are going to get to work as soon as we are given the oath."

Sparks flying in Helotes in advance of council elections

Emotions appear to be running high in the final days of the Helotes city council campaign.  As I wrote about a few days ago, these elections pit three one-term, sensible-growth, incumbents, against developer-funded opponents, who appear to be aiming to take back the small town in the name of sprawl -- sprawl that is engulfing much of the Hill Country on the outskirts of San Antonio.

Another sign dispute has erupted, as reported by the Express-News yesterday:

Two informational neighborhood signs at the Cedar Springs subdivision have been at the center of several past disputes and recently sparked another controversy.

Around April 27, the signs just inside the subdivision's entrance and exit gates displayed messages that city officials said are in violation of a city ordinance and also could jeopardize the nonprofit status of the Cedar Springs Homeowners Association.

One read: "Green party respect CS private property ask B4 placing your election signs." The other said: "Helotes taxes going up 24 percent do U care."

The term "green party" refers to the color of the signs for City Council incumbents — Mayor Jon Allan, Place 3 Councilwoman Linda Boyer-Owens and Place 5 Councilman Stuart Birnbaum, who are seeking re-election May 12.

Allan said the statement about the tax increase is inaccurate and appears to be in reference to information from campaign literature of the challengers: Tom Schoolcraft is running for mayor; Jeff Ellis for Place 3; and Rich Whitehead for Place 5.

A city ordinance that governs signs like those in the 501-home Cedar Springs subdivision says the purpose of "residential subdivision changeable copy signs for gated communities" is to "provide non-commercial and non-political information related to the residential subdivision."

"Regardless of the specifics of what the signs say, they can't have any political information of any kind on them," Allan said.

But the HOA board members, who said they were responsible for posting the copy, disagree.

"We do not see the information as political, but rather as fact and for the information of the community," said Mike Taylor, board treasurer.

Board president Lorraine Shattuck agreed but would not comment further. Allan said he called Shattuck twice and left messages to try to resolve the issue, but his calls were not returned.

The evidence for the heated emotions comes in an anecdote related later in this article:

A Helotes Police Department report about the April 28 event at the corner of Cedar Point and Hausman Road indicates that Helotes residents John Eakin and Linda Montemayor were involved.

According to the report, Eakin was campaigning for the incumbents when Montemayor was driving into the neighborhood and an exchange occurred.

"I was trying to go into the neighborhood and John was walking toward me with fliers. ... I shook my head and he kept coming and I told him that 'I would not vote for y'all if my life depended on it,'" Montemayor said. "He then told me 'We don't want your white trash votes anyway,' and I called the police."

Eakin admits that he was there and was asked to leave by Apodaca [vice president of the homeowners association], but he denies making the comment to Montemayor.

"The police did come and make me sign a document about trespassing, and I did speak with Linda, but I did not saying anything like that to her. She was screaming obscenities," he said.

This particular homeowners association may be advertising political slogans attacking the sensible-growth incumbent councilmembers, but the homeowners who live there are far from unanimous in this feeling. 

The article quotes resident Bill Hollis, "There is no other way to label these people [the homeowners' association board] except as a rogue board, and with them, anything goes. ...  When you file as a nonprofit organization with the state and become tax-exempt, you can't be political in any way. Those signs are clearly political and we could lose our nonprofit status, but it is not the first time they have violated nonpolitical rules." 

Resident Edie Lopez is quoted also, saying, "Anyone who has knowledge of organizations like this that are nonprofit knows that you don't do certain things, especially political things, and this is not something the entire neighborhood agrees with."

Living a few miles down the road in unincorporated Bexar County, just outside the San Antonio city limits, I have unfortunately no say in this election, or, for that matter, in any of the San Antonio city council elections next week.  So I am envious of the residents of Helotes.  They have an opportunity to stand up (once again) to the immense wealth of the real estate developers pushing for unrestrained development of the land and neighborhoods we love.  My only voice is in the state legislature, which is tightly controlled by these forces, with any glimmer of wresting that control away far off.

I hope that the residents of Helotes make the same decision that they made two years ago, when they voted in Mayor Jon Allan and councilmembers Linda Boyer-Owens and Stuart Hirshbaum, and voted out uncontrolled sprawl.

Here are some words from Allan, Boyer-Owens, and Hirshbaum on their platform, as quoted in the Express-News on April 25:

Allan:  "I see the big issue is how do we deal with development. We have now required developers to build sidewalks and boosted the tree ordinance. It makes sense.

"What I tried to do the last couple of years is protect the open spaces and realistically come up with a plan so that as development comes in, we are setting aside parks and open space, and saving more trees.

"We have implemented a dark sky ordinance to preserve it from light pollution and we are undergoing a big planning process to deal with how we will sustain development."

Boyer-Owens:  "The issues are still much like they were when I ran two years ago. The press of urban sprawl and trying to maintain the Helotes the town we love to live in.

"If reelected, we really want to finish the job we started. We had a lot to clean up in our first two years, and now we need to move forward. We have the new master plan/comprehensive planning process started, and I think it will lay down the consensus of the community about what Helotes wants for the future.

"We want to pursue becoming home rule, that takes a lot of work and lots of citizen input and I want to see an effort to cultivate and recruit the type of businesses and services that Helotians want. The claims of depleting the reserve fund aren´t true."

Hirshbaum:  "Parks and open space is important issue, we can either have rampant development and clear cutting or we can try to protect some portion of this as green space for citizens to use.

"I think we can do this without using tax money and without undue financial burden on the citizens. I don't think the city can really consider itself a proper community without having some park space for its citizens to use.

"Quality of life issues are important, and parks and playgrounds for children are the major concerns that I have and reasons I have decided to run again. I think that the current mayor and council are making great strides in that direction and another two years would help move us along."

Final voting is Saturday, May 12.  Last time, Allan and his two allies won by a literal handful of votes.  The cliche is accurate in this case:  every vote counts. 

Forces promoting uncontrolled development want to take back Helotes

Two years ago, a battle over the development of a Super Wal-Mart divided the small town of Helotes, on the outskirts of San Antonio's sprawling suburbs and a gateway to the Hill Country.  The municipal elections ended up with the anti-Wal-Mart forces, led by mayoral candidate Jon Allan, ekeing out a victory by a handful of votes, ousting three council incumbents who had supported the Wal-Mart development.

Within months, Wal-Mart had given up on their plans in Helotes. 

Now, election season has returned, the Great Helotes Mulch Fire has come and gone, and, while Wal-Mart has left, the forces promoting the continued tearing up and paving over of the countryside have decidedly not. 

The Express-News reported yesterday (via Dig Deeper Texas):

The amount of money contributed this year to municipal election campaigns here is markedly higher than in previous years, due in part to $10,000 in contributions made by an area developer.

On March 19, Alfred "Tom" Rohde gave a total of $10,000 to three candidates who are running against three City Council incumbents. Tom Schoolcraft is challenging Mayor Jon Allan, Jeff Ellis is running against Place 3 Councilwoman Linda Boyer-Owens and Rich Whitehead is seeking to unseat Place 5 Councilman Stuart Birnbaum.

Rohde contributed $4,000 to Schoolcraft's campaign and gave $3,000 each to Ellis and Whitehead. Their most recent contribution reports indicate Schoolcraft received a total of $5,460.28, while Ellis and Whitehead each received a total of $3,355.14.

"I felt it was time for a change," Rohde said when asked about his contributions. He added he won't contribute any more money to the races.

Unlike San Antonio, Helotes does not have ordinances governing the amount of money that can be contributed.

"I have looked at records, (and) numbers like this are unheard of," Allan said. "In past elections, (Helotes) candidates have usually not received more than $1,000, total."

The proponents of uncontrolled development also apparently are not letting city law get in the way of their expressions of support, as the Express-News reported a couple days ago:

A couple of unconventional campaign signs may cause hefty fines for the owners of the property where they are displayed.

The electronic signs, resembling those used to announce traffic hazards, display political advertisements for the candidates challenging three City Council incumbents, including Mayor Jon Allan.

"The signs are in violation of the Section 66-117 of the city's sign ordinance that governs political signs," said City Attorney Habib Erkan. "They are too big, too high and they are lit internally — none of which is allowed for political signs, according to the ordinance."

The signs are causing tension in an already heated election season, officials said.

...

The signs flash advertisements for Tom Schoolcraft, Jeff Ellis and Rich Whitehead. Schoolcraft is challenging Allan, Ellis faces Place 3 Councilwoman Linda Boyer-Owens and Whitehead faces Place 5 Councilman Stuart Birnbaum.

Schoolcraft said he was unaware of any potential violation when the signs went up.

"I understand the city is contacting the landowners, but I have not heard anything or received anything in writing. It is up to the landowners to decide what they will do," he said.

One of the signs is at FM 1560 and Bandera Road on the property of Daryl Zumwalt, and the other is off Bandera Road on a tract owned by REOC Partners Ltd. Representatives for both said they had no comment.

Zumwalt.  That name sounded familiar to me.   Oh, yes, that huge mulch pile--a result of the uncontrolled development in the surrounding area--that made such a big stink so recently was on land owned by a fellow named Henry L. Zumwalt, not far from where that illegal political sign is now.

What further surprises do the Zumwalts and developer Rohde have in store for Helotes?

Unfair attacks on Senator Clinton

No matter how early it may seem, it's Presidential campaign season, and that means Bob Somerby's Daily Howler has once again returned to the top of my must-read list. No one else is as determined to cut through the media misinformation.

His latest efforts have been centered on attacks—primarily by other Democrats—on Senator and candidate for President Hillary Clinton. The attacks, including the latest by the usually excellent New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, suggest that Senator Clinton has not admitted to making a mistake by voting in late 2002 to authorize George W. Bush to use force in Iraq.

Somerby wrote yesterday (emphasis his):

According to Krugman, Clinton has refused to “own up” to her “mistake” in casting that 10/02 vote. His argument will surely affect many readers. But here’s the problem: Krugman never lets readers decide for themselves whether Clinton has really owned up to her error. He never quotes a single thing Clinton has actually said on this subject. Krugman keeps readers barefoot and clueless. They hear his account of what Clinton has said. They don’t hear her actual statements.

Has Clinton “owned up” to her “mistake?” Has she “admit[ted] past error?” For ourselves, we think it’s odd that Clinton won’t use the specific word “mistake” in describing her 10/02 vote. But in our judgment, she has owned up to her mistake—in fact, she did so long ago. Other readers might agree with that assessment—if Krugman would have the decency to tell them what Clinton has actually said.

The history: Clinton cast that awful vote in October 2002. (So did Kerry. So did Edwards.) But omigod! As early as August 2004, she had clearly rethought the vote. On August 29, she appeared on Meet the Press (where she staunchly defended Kerry and Edwards). Here’s part of what she said—well over two years ago:

RUSSERT (8/29/04): Jay Rockefeller, the vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, was on this program a few weeks ago and this is what he said: "...We in Congress would not have authorized that war—we would not have authorized that war—with 75 votes if we knew what we know now." Do you agree with him?

CLINTON: There would not have been a vote, Tim. There would never have been a vote to the Congress presented by the administration. There would have been no basis for it.

All the way back in 8/04, Clinton said there would have been “no basis” for that vote if we’d known there were no WMD. There wouldn’t even have been a vote, she told Russert (also Wolf Blitzer). Since then, she’s continued making that statement, even spelling things out for the very slow by adding the obvious corollary—she herself would have voted “no” if she’d known there were no WMD. Do you mind if we make a simple statement? In our view, Clinton did “say that she was wrong to vote for the Iraq war resolution” when she made that statement to Russert. (When she said she’d have voted the other way if she knew about the WMD.)

This whole pseudo-controversy is ludicrous—perhaps even more so as it is being ginned up by Democrats rather than the typical Republican noise machine. Clinton has admitted error on her 2002 vote and has promised to end the war if she is elected. What more needs to be said?

Yet we have Krugman insinuating that she may possibly as pig-headedly stubborn as Bush, and we have Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos seconding that and proclaiming that she has already lost any hope of his support because she won't say the precise phrase "I made a mistake."  Plenty of other bloggers inherently suspicious of Senator Clinton are joining in.  They appear unaware that Clinton has been admitting to being incorrect on the Iraq war vote for a year-and-a-half—far longer than John Edwards, who escapes their wrath, has been doing so.

This is insane. If we're going to attack each other, let it at least be over something accurate.