GRANTING AN AUDIENCE TO A PROFESSIONAL TROUBLEMAKER

A lot of bull rounded up this week

The post-election spin and counter-spin continues and is unlikely to abate for awhile.

The victors, of course, have the expectation that they get to write the history. On the national level, the soon-to-be Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell is mumbling the usual about elections "meaning something" and the "will of the people." Translation? "We'll do what we want to do and don't take responsibility for any of it."

Ian Reifowitz in the Daily Kos takes a good, hard look at how well McConnell has heeded the "will of the people" over time. As it happens, when that will swung in the direction of Democrats, well...not so much. He points to how different things were in 2009 following an election where both houses of Congress went strongly Democratic along with the executive branch. More than that, "just over 57 percent of eligible voters actually turned out to vote, the highest level in four decades."

How well did the GOP respect that reality?

And now, "after midterm elections that saw the lowest voter turnout since 1942 at barely 36 percent," suddenly Democrats are supposed to get in line.

Meanwhile, up in Southlake, one of the wealthiest communities in the United States, Tea Party favorite, Rep. Giovanni Capriglione, claims that "In Texas, the results were an overwhelming confirmation of our state’s approach to governance."

Honestly, how overwhelming was that confirmation? 

There's a great deal of attention on how Gov-elect Abbott resoundingly defeated Sen. Wendy Davis. But what's not spoken of is how the Abbott vs. Perry race came out. That is to say, how many GOP voters turned out to 

Looks like we're turned onto a dead end

confirm Abbott compared to those that showed for Perry in 2010?  Abbott's "overwhelming confirmation" was, in fact, significantly smaller than what Perry got. Though the final numbers aren't in, about 50,000 more people did vote for Abbott than Perry. That's about a 2% increase. But between 2010 and 2014, the number of registered voters rose 6.7%. Abbott had to polled 100,000+ more to match what Perry did in terms of the percentage of registered voters. It['s even worse in terms of the eligible-to-vote. So rather than an "overwhelming confirmation,"it's more like a resounding "meh."

The Contrarian Chorus:

Meanwhile, the contrarians make more convincing, less self-serving arguments. It seems clear that what we really saw was the ultimate triumph of money in politics and the confirmation of the oligarchy that goes with it. 

Ben Ptashnik in TruthOut puts it simply:

Let's not hesitate to say what is obvious: This was an entirely corrupt and rigged election. What we witnessed last Tuesday, on Election Day, is just how dirty the right-wing corporate and fossil fuel oligarchy is willing to play. They exceeded our worst expectations and cheated so boldly that despite all we know about them, it still sent shivers up our collective spine.

In addition to the Supreme Court opening the floodgates to allow billionaire bucks to drown out the Voice of the People, there's also GOP voter suppression including the Voter ID law here in Texas. How many were kept away won't be clear for some time. It will take a concerted effort from well-funded social scientists to tease that out of the data, according to Drew DeSilver, a Senior Writer at the Pew Research Center.  I asked him if it was knowable, and if so - what would it take? 

First off, you'd need to wait for the full, official tallies of votes, down to at least the county level (and ideally the precinct level), which I assume won't be out for several weeks. I don't know what voting-law changes Texas has made between 2010 and 2014, but you'd want to account not just for those changes, but for differences in how strictly/loosely they were enforced in different localities. Then you'd also need a model of expected 2014 turnout absent any voting-law changes, which would have to take into account population growth, demographic changes, which races were on the ballot, and other factors that you'd expect to influence turnout. You’d want a good demographic portrait of the 2014 electorate, better than you get from the exit polls, but that comes from the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey, which won't be out for a few months. And you'd probably also want to compare 2010-14 turnout differential in Texas to other states that had made similar changes to their voting laws. 

So it's a major undertaking. Perhaps Greg Abbott, in one of his last acts as Attorney General, could commission an independent study to get the facts? I mean, he's going to want to argue for Voter ID when it comes before the Supreme Court. Won't he want the facts to be sure that justice is done?

While you're holding your breath, Juan Thompson in The Intercept collects the anecdotal evidence to show "How Voter Suppression Helped Produce the Lowest Turnout in Decades."

Speaking of the Supreme Court, it look like, at long last, New York Times court reporter Linda Greenhouse has reached a tipping point. Now that the conservative block on the court has taken it upon themselves to gut Obamacare, there's no use kidding ourselves any longer:

In decades of court-watching, I have struggled — sometimes it has seemed against all odds — to maintain the belief that the Supreme Court really is a court and not just a collection of politicians in robes. This past week, I’ve found myself struggling against the impulse to say two words: I surrender.

A Professional's Pride:

Finally, following up on my maudlin Veteran's Day recollection of what I did during the run-up to the Iraq war, I found this delightful online comment that came a few years after as I got into another political fracas in 2006. This person's revisionism is amazing. I spoke out against the lies that brought us to war. I was lucky enough to have a public platform to say, loud and proud, that there were NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. 

Well, the fact that I was vindicated must have been too much to bear. So this is what he made of it instead:

###

Tips? Suggestions? Ideas? Drop a line to carl (at) inanityofsanity (dot) com

Twitter: @inanityofsanity

VETERANS DAY REMEMBRANCE: 2002-2003

11/11/1918 Peace Breaks Out

With Armistice Day (aka Veterans Day) just past, let's take a moment away from the political battleground here in Texas. 

Yesterday, I ran across this recording and now find myself drifting back to some twelve years ago. The clip is dated 3/26/03, near the end of my last stint on AM talk radio. That lasted  from the run-up to the invasion of Iraq to shortly after the war started. 

Though I've never served in the military, this brings me to my "what I did during the war" story, inadequate as it is. 

In 2002 when I moved to Portland, Maine, I'd been doing talk radio fill-ins in New Hampshire for almost a decade. It was something of a hobby. When I started subbing at a station in my new town, I decided to get more serious about it. WGAN-AM was/is a classic news/talker with a decent news operation to spice up the usual slate of conservative programming. Being on a Maine radio station doesn't sound like much except that George H.W. Bush was in our listenership. Also, the radio group General Manager at the time was something of a noted figure in talk radio for discovering and developing talent.

My views about the coming war were quite clear. The past summer, just as the full-on marketing of it was about to get underway, I did a show about the run-up to the Gulf War in 1990. I explained why we should be extraordinarily skeptical of the Bush Administration's claims that would soon come. Still, that fall and winter, war talk didn't define my increasing presence at the station. By springtime, it actually offered a breakthrough for my career. When the invasion of Iraq began on March 19, they expanded local coverage pulling the syndicated programming from nine to noon and putting me there instead. I followed the morning show and did the lead in to Rush Limbaugh! 

Most definitely open-carry

From the start, my show pushed the boundaries for the mostly conservative listeners. One morning, our troops paused for a moment before taking Baghdad in what was expected to be a bloodbath. On air, I pondered "what if George Bush had ANOTHER Christian conversion and became a pacifist" and refused to allow the slaughter? Conservative Christians were outraged and called to insist that Jesus would certainly be pro-war. I shared my wonder at why, if so, some call him "The Prince of Peace."

I was edgy, but not completely over-the-edge until I was cornered on-air by one caller about the Weapons of Mass Destruction, supposedly the reason for the war. I had raised the mystery at hand, wondering why none had been discovered. He pressed me about it. It was just a few days after the invasion and I'd held back from saying what I had been thinking - that there were none. But he pressed and I said it. "THERE ARE NO WMD!"

"You're going to eat a lot of crow when they're found," he warned me. 

I turned it into a bet. Yes, I'd eat REAL crow, live on-the-air, if he was right. BUT - if he was wrong? His part of the wager was that he'd call for the impeachment of the President of the United States.

After my shift that day, I ran into the GM in the break room.

"Be sure to let me know when the first death threats come in," I joked.

He didn't have the heart to tell me they'd had some already.

NOTHING accomplished - still not finished

Of course, I didn't last long enough at WGAN to collect on my bet. Soon after, the excitement of the invasion turned to "Mission Accomplished." They cut my shift to return to network programming. I suppose I shouldn't have been surprised that the regular calls I'd been getting to fill-in did not resume. I did get one such request awhile later - to step in for the garden show (yes, I tried despite total ignorance on the subject...just to show my hosting chops).  Except for being interviewed on air in the years since, I haven't been on the broadcaster side again till recently.

So that's my "what I did during the war" story. No, I never served in the military. But I did serve my country as best I could, brandishing my First Amendment rights trying to turn swords into plowshares. 

What I sacrificed was small - just that opportunity in talk radio. Sorry to say, my sacrifice was in vain. I wish there had been some way truth-telling - mine and others - could have saved our soldiers from making the sacrifices they made in Iraq. Many of them offered - and gave - their lives in good faith. We need to remember that - and that those who led them to it were operating in bad faith.

###

Tips? Suggestions? Ideas? Drop a line to carl (at) inanityofsanity (dot) com

Twitter: @inanityofsanity

GOV-ELECT ABBOTT: THE LANCE ARMSTRONG OF TEXAS POLITICS

Too good to be true

The lopsided election returns are too good to be true for Texas Republicans. The outsize results are like the stats in sports distorted by performance enhancing drugs. The dope boosting Republican numbers? Governor-elect Greg Abbott's unconstitutional Voter Suppression Law, aka "Voter ID". Winning with it makes Abbott the Lance Armstrong of Texas politics. 

As Texas Attorney General, Abbott used his public office for personal and partisan advantage by successfully petitioning the Supreme Court to keep Voter ID alive for his election. This came just before early voting began and on the heels of the court's ruling that a similar law in Wisconsin was unconstitutional. Why strike it down there but not here? Abbott argued that since the law had previously disenfranchised eligible voters, the last-minute change would cause chaos. Apparently, voters are accustomed to having their constitutional rights violated in Texas. It would cause confusion to stop doing that suddenly. Or, is it that conservative voters are accustomed to seeing the rights of Hispanics and others in Texas violated - and their tranquility should not be suddenly disturbed? Either way, this left as many as 800,000 voters without the credentials needed to vote - more than the margin for victory in past gubernatorial races.

As intended, Abbott's Voter Suppression Law proved toxic to his opponent Wendy Davis' campaign by undermining its core strategy. Legions of volunteers working in Battleground Texas, its sister organization, spent the past year beating the bushes for the very voters disenfranchised by Abbott. So the election was over before it even began. Still, Wendy Davis soldiered on, holding out for the miraculous. After all, she faced a similar situation as Republicans tried to shut down her celebrated filibuster.

That evening, her GOP Senate colleagues sought to inflict a humiliating defeat by whatever means necessary. They discarded decorum and decency, trampling Texas Senate traditions. This literally triggered a public outcry. A shout rose up in the gallery, spontaneous outrage at the misconduct. The shout was loud and long and made it impossible for Republicans to deliver the coup de grâce. The so-called "Unruly Mob using Occupy Wall Street tactics" ran out the clock, finishing Davis' filibuster for her.

Nothing like The Shout happened on Election Day. Davis, a true statesman, encouraged voters to head to the polls to "respect and honor...those voices who want to be part of this process but who Greg Abbott denied the opportunity to do so." Still, a different kind of public outcry may come when the Supreme Court strikes down the law. At the very least, Abbott's tainted victory will be seen for what it is. Perhaps an asterisk will have to be placed next to the results on the Secretary of State's final tally, just like the stats for sports seasons tainted by doping.

Wouldn't Abbott and other Texas Republicans have won with-or-without robbing voters of their rights? Lance Armstrong, no doubt, would have been a champ without cheating, too. Unlike Armstrong, Governor-elect Abbott will not have his title taken from him. Certainly he should be stripped of whatever laurels he and his cohorts may claim for a mandate based on their boosted election results. Worse, it casts a shadow over his administration. Abbott opened his victory speech addressing everyone "whether you voted for me, against me or didn't vote at all..." He forgot those he denied the vote, a telling omission. The Governor-elect is NOT for all Texans.

Far from being humiliated by the seeming magnitude of the Republican sweep, Wendy Davis and the other Democrats on the ticket should be emboldened by it. It is a sure sign of the unconstitutional swindle that defines this election, and a true reflection of the dishonest characters behind it.

###

Tips? Suggestions? Ideas? Drop a line to carl (at) inanityofsanity (dot) com

Twitter: @inanityofsanity

OF MOBS & MILLENIALS: WENDY'S FILIBUSTER A YEAR ON

Now, a year on

This week marks a year since the fracas in Texas went into full-gear with Wendy Davis' celebrated filibuster. 

I happened into it almost inadvertently. 

I followed the rumblings building up to it, watched the "people's filibuster" that had gone on in the days before. Hundreds of activists poured in to testify against the Texas GOP's anti-abortion legislation. The idea was to go the distance with the Far Right legislators, force them into exhaustion with testimony around-the-clock. What got my attention was the anti-abortion zealot's response - axing the public's right to give testimony. 

Many women who had traveled great distances to share their heart-rending stories were sent away. What did the Texas GOP accomplish by this?  They put the lid on the pressure cooker and turned up the heat. I made my plans to attend the real-deal filibuster. I managed to finish my work early that afternoon and headed over with some camera gear at around 3pm.  

The outrageous conduct of the Republican senators stays in my mind. It was clear that they would stop at nothing to stop Wendy. Decorum? Tradition? Basic respect? Forget it. They showed themselves to be bullies intent on humiliating a political enemy. When things didn't quite turn out the way they expected, their bellyaching after about being bested by a breach of decorum was laughable.

AAS's Arnold Garcia's laconic style

In any case, I tried putting this experience into perspective in the Austin American Statesman. I submitted "Of Mobs & Millennials" and it was accepted immediately. Usually, I'd honor the publication by simply providing a link here. 

Unfortunately, my piece didn't survive the editing process whole. Through some editing error, the concluding paragraph somehow got axed in the print edition. Numerous kindred problems plagued the online version. Despite repeat requests to get these sorted out (they did manage to correct their misspelling of ""Legilslators" that had been in the title), it still sits mangled on their website. For example, instead of opening with my opening, a paragraph removed towards the end (at the request of the editor) somehow appears as the opening sentence!   

So, here's what they published under the headline "Legislators hear roar of Millennials" - as intended.  Does it hold up? 

***

Of Mobs & Millennials

                                                       - By Carl Lindemann

Who is behind the “unruly mob using Occupy Wall Street tactics” that shut down the Texas Senate? It isn’t Wendy Davis. The Republican Establishment has worse to fear. What they heard wasn't just a few young women rattling the rafters. It was a shout-out from the millennial generation.

Millennials are the more than 100 million Americans born from 1983 to 2003. They like to vote. With each passing election cycle, millions more of them can and do go to the polls. According to the Center for American Progress, millennials accounted for 20 percent of the ballots cast in 2008, some 25 million nationwide. In 2016, that should grow to 33 percent, 46 million ballots.

That millennials are ethnically diverse and politically progressive does not bode well for the status quo in Texas. In 1988, conservatives outnumbered progressives here by 14 percent among 18- to- 29-year-olds. In 2008, that shifted drastically, with progressives leading by 9 percent — a 23-point swing. Millennials are a lost generation to the GOP that has hitched its wagon to aging white tea party members.

The one ray of hope for conservatives is abortion. Millennials have the same mixed feelings about it that their parents do. But millennials have little interest in the Culture Wars that have divided us into red and blue states. Despite deep differences over abortion, they won’t let it split them.

Are millennials an unruly mob? Making noise inside the Capitol is nothing new to Austin’s contingent. Hundreds gather there regularly to “Om the Dome.” They sit in still silence meditating for the better part of an hour, then let out a joyful sound that reverberates throughout the building.

This isn’t just an Austin thing. It is an offshoot of MedMob, a quintessential millennial phenomenon that started here in 2011. Since, it has spread worldwide. Its mission? The “unification of our inner selves in public spaces.”

MedMob goes about this through “flash mobs,” albeit of a different sort than the carefully choreographed street theater often posted on YouTube. MedMobs are organized only to the extent that they synch-up over 300 cities on five continents. Maybe you’ve seen a horde of 20-somethings congregating calmly on the ground downtown. That’s it.

So millennials aren’t an unruly mob. This crew just operates by a different set of rules. That explains what happened in the Senate last week. The young women in the gallery held their breath and noses witnessing a brutal beat-down on Wendy Davis. In the end, it was a matter of conscience. They could not just stand by watching such injustice. So they shouted with a great shout and the wall came down.

And about the “Occupy Wall Street tactics”? That millennial signature shout comes from being close-knit. They are tribal at heart, communitarians. Their connection with Occupy, a protest organized by middle-aged anarchists? For most just a passing phase, a first few stumbling steps into politics. Now they are beginning to find their own feet.

While Republicans feel the heat in Texas, Democrats will soon have their turn. President Obama is not the man millennials hoped for when they took him over the top in 2008. Consider his penchant for punishing whistleblowers. Though Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden may be an anathema to the Washington establishment, they are millennials par excellence.

Politicians of all stripes should brace for the coming quarrel with millennials. The first clash will be over the crushing weight of student debt. They will revolt against backbreaking interest rates on these no-risk loans. Those holding the paper will get payback — but of a different kind than the windfall profits they expect.

More immediately, during the special session, Republicans might remember one thing while plotting revenge on the upstarts that upset their agenda. The issues alone didn’t send millennials into a frenzy over Occupy.

It was the cavalier way issues dear to them were cast aside. Being brusque now is the sure way to elect Wendy Davis Governor - if not in 2014, then in 2018.

###

Tips? Suggestions? Ideas? Drop a line to carl (at) inanityofsanity (dot) com

Twitter: @inanityofsanity

ATTITUDES & ABBOTT BEHIND BRUTAL ABORTION STUNT

The Abbot supporter behind the LA hit

What's the Texas connection behind the instantly infamous "Abortion Barbie" stunt that even the Abbott campaign (but not Abbott himself) denounced?

Kolten Parker at the San Antonio Express-News and Wayne Slater at the Dallas Morning News have provided tantalizing glimpses. But there's more to the story... 

Parker unearthed the Texas connection through some sharp reporting in "Conservative Midland woman funds 'Abortion Barbie' posters in Hollywood." 

Kathryn Stuard told the San Antonio Express-News she donated an undisclosed amount to conservative street artist “Sabo” to create the posters.

“It hits people with the truth,” said Stuard, 53. “The artist is very edgy… I do support (Greg) Abbott but the campaign had nothing to do with these (posters).”

But then, after Parker published his piece, Stuard publicly requested a correction via Twitter where she goes by "#DUDE! I'M#BOSSY!!

"I said I helped fund the artist's ongoing project. I never commissioned or asked him to do this 'for me.' Please correct."

How Parker found her

Did Parker misrepresent Stuard's involvement? Was she something of an unwitting party here? She supported "ongoing work" but not this specific, tasteless prank. Can you really blame a patron of the arts when a beneficiary of their largess steps over the line? 

Parker responded to defend his work. "I see no reason for a correction, nothing is inaccurate and the info is attributed correctly. Am I missing something?" 

He also provided an email from the prankster (see right) that pointed to his benefactor. It also provided the needed clues to track her down to Texas from her otherwise obscure name on the posters. 

With this, Stuard immediately backed down from her request for a correction. But I still had some questions. So I tweeted her.

INTO A TWITTER TIZZY:

A cordial discussion until...BURP! 

Unfortunately, Twitter isn't well-designed to handle a back-and-forth, especially with more than two people involved. Let's unpack this.

Basically, Stuard continued to distance herself. How is it that her name ended up on all of the posters? A misunderstanding. "I did not ask for any approval or review. They are his expressions He is the artist"

Then, an associate - apparently the person who connected Stuard to Los Angeles - jumped in. More about "Bossy Rock Princess" ("Rock Prin" on Facebook, but let's just call her BRP) and her expletive-laced "style" later.

"Thanks for being our voice"

Now, the problem here is that Stuard's statements and actions elsewhere seem to contradict this. On Facebook, she said "I donated to get these up. Have had press calling this afternoon." A friend replied "Wow. Thank you for being our voice...Hope it doesn't backfire on Abbott."

I posted this for her response (see right). Still, in the back-and-forth, she insisted that there was an arms-length relationship here. 

I donated. Gave money. No ROI... Just like if you had a message I liked I'd donate to your cause. To support artist so he can get his work out. It's always a secret. Ya don't know....All I knew it was art going up where she was speaking....

Let's take her at her word. 

Blasted out all through the day on Twitter

But what about her hands-on work promoting this once it was out? As the posters hit the streets Thursday morning, Stuard was hammering away all day on Twitter marketing it. "Look what went up all over LA!" she declared, over and again, including an image of the posters and the prankster. She posted this some twenty-seven times in the hours after it hit the street, with innumerable other postings to promote it. She did not, however, disclose her direct connection.  

Now, looking back in her Twitter feed, it seems that she made other contributions to the effort. On May 16th, she put out a call for general support, then a very specific pitch. She retweeted BRP's message "Need funds to plaster Los Angeles with posters when #AbortionBarbie comes to town next week!"    

WHY THE BACKPEDALING?

The May 16 pitch

Given all this, it's hard to imagine a greater level of commitment short of helping put up the posters herself. Still, there was no direct connection until Stuard confirmed it when she spoke to the reporter that afternoon. The back backpedaling started after Parker's story hit the street, when it became clear that the Texas connection with funding from an Abbott supporter would be of great interest - and concern.  

Also, it is worth noting that Stuard had received negative feedback during her promotions. Some conservatives didn't think that was appropriate. "Benghazi Sentinel" wondered "Do little girls need this?" 

"It's a smack in their (Liberals) face," she replied. 

"That's really over the top and seriously wacky...hate to be the mother who has to explain this stuff," he answered.

Then, there was her Facebook friend's concern, "Hope it doesn't backfire on Abbott."

Now, Stuard had a compatriot throughout this entire experience, and certainly during our Twitter exchange. 

The Princess doth protest too much, methinks

BRP's part here is telling. "Attacking an innocent citizen funding art cuz u can't tie it to Abbott or GOP PATHETIC" 

First, "an innocent citizen funding art"? Stuard knew this was a donation for negative messaging against a political opponent. She had made her opinions about Wendy Davis plain in rehashes of the fracas about her biography in January. And now? She'd paid "...to plaster Los Angeles with posters when #AbortionBarbie comes to town..."

And "can't tie to Abbott or GOP"? Stuard did that herself the moment she identified herself as an Abbott supporter. What's worse, her friend thanking her for "being our voice," while having concerns for the campaign's exposure makes the connection clear. Is the prank's "message" some aberrant attitude, or does it reflect views embraces by Abbott's supporters? Tellingly, the Facebook post disappeared shortly after I posted it.  

WHERE STUARD SURPRISES

All that being said, Stuard should not be dismissed altogether as some blind ideologue. Instead, she's an example of the ills Far Right ideology has brought to the cause of good governance.  She is not a media professional. She's an occasional blogger and introduced herself online last year as a "Stomping Mad Mom in Midland." A mother of five, in fact. 

Now she finds herself unexpectedly in a media frenzy. I don't imagine that this attention was exactly what she was hoping for, much less expecting.Reading Wayne Slater's take in the Dallas Morning News (“Abortion Barbie” posters depicting Wendy Davis as a pregnant Barbie doll appear in Los Angeles), I found myself wondering about her opinions. He quotes her as saying “...If we’re going to have abortion, can’t they just be safe?” 

Now, that last intrigued me. Does she actually have a nuanced view on abortion?

So I Tweeted her about this. Here initial reply wasn't promising.

"I'm certainly not in support of unsafe, non hospital privileged clinics. Hear of Gosnell?"

But I persisted. I pressed her again. "Gosnell is a criminal. We're talking about LEGAL abortion. So you are pro-choice?"

Then she surprised me. 

Was it possible that we could find common ground?

"We agree? REDUCING abortion requires good public policy/health. Attempts to "end" or ban not helpful/realistic.

Her reply?

Now, what if we really do stay planted in reality?  What if we start trusting public health to public health professionals and physicians with health care....and set aside ideology to focus on best practices, practical solutions and positive outcomes? 

Here's where today's radicalized GOP runs into problems. Traditionally, conservatives have operated in the realm of reality. What to do when radical politics and practicality intersects? The reality is that Kathyrn Stuard is NOT the stereotypical anti-abortion activist that some would see her as. Is it possible for Stuard to see that the stereotype she has of Wendy Davis isn't accurate, either?  Is it possible to set aside labels and look to practical solutions for reducing unwanted pregnancies - and with them, abortions - even if they come from Texas Democrats?

THE "BUT THEY DO IT, TOO" EXCUSE

Now, let's look at this from a different angle. Is there some way that Stuard's prank can, somehow, be justified? 

In our back-and-forth, Stuard repeatedly attempted to justify her actions by citing what she sees as the equally abhorrent attacks on Greg Abbott for his handicap. She suggested that I look them up. Well, I have already written about that, particularly in regard to James O'Keefe's part in cooking up these "offences" by doctoring footage. As Jonathan Tilove reported in the Austin American Statesman:

...the most egregious edit of all is the placement of the hacking laugh. In the video released by O'Keefe, it comes when the "old woman" says "he's in a wheelchair." But in the raw footage, it comes five seconds later, with the exchange about Abbott's hair.

In other words, the headline on O'Keefe's release - which read Breaking News Video: Wendy Davis Supporters/BGTX Mock Greg Abbott's Disability - would have better read, Breaking News Video: Wendy Davis Supporters/BGTX Mock Greg Abbott's Hair.

 
Also, there's an essential contrast here between Davis and Abbott's responses to these situations. When it seemed that the inappropriate conduct from a Davis supporter was real, the candidate herself stepped up immediately to denounce it. Abbott, however, distances himself with spokespeople as he did with Stuard's prank. 

"It's not affiliated with our campaign and we find it appalling," said Abbott campaign spokesman Matt Hirsch as Slater reported. 

Are Abbott and his supporters truly appalled, or is this just public relations posturing?  

WHAT ABBOTT SUPPORTERS SAY AMONG THEMSELVES

We get another glimpse at the reality looking at Stuard's associate, the Los Angeles conservative that apparently connected her to this nastiness. While Stuard took time to courteously respond on Twitter, the same could not be said for her anonymous associate. 

Twitter devotee

"Bossy Rock Princess" was offensive, insulting and could not restrain herself from using the "F-Bomb." I had to ask "Bad case of Tourette's - or incapable of having a civil discussion?"

"Princess" is apparently part of the Twitter subculture. With over 77,600 "tweets" up...let's do the math. She posted her first in July, 2012. So she's been averaging just under 100 a day. Day in, day out, she cranks them out to over 22,000 followers.

Big audience of followers for this

Though it's hard to imagine she has time for much else, BRP did make an appearance on an internet radio station, "We are America Radio,"  following the prank. This is part of the same site where Stuard blogs. BRP comes on for the last half-hour to detail what happened, and what it represents. 

"It's time to stop letting the establishment decide how we want to run our campaigns and how we want to support our candidates. We can go bold, edgy in your face...." she says. What's especially noteworthy, in light of James O'Keefe's manufactured video about Davis' supporters, is the laughter here from the host:

All this comes down to the question I raised earlier: 

Is the prank's "message" some aberrant attitude, or does it reflect views widely embraced by Abbott's supporters? 

***

FOOTNOTE:

Unlike O'Keefe's claims about Davis' supporters, this is reality.  You can check the whole show, unedited, here on Soundcloud (the segment starts at 31:00. Listen esp. through to 33:15).

###

Tips? Suggestions? Ideas? Drop a line to carl (at) inanityofsanity (dot) com

Twitter: @inanityofsanity

A DO-OVER IN KOCH-CONNECTED WENDY ATTACK

"Citizen Anderson": Editor and AFP Policy Analyst

The characters carrying out the latest attack on Wendy Davis have now reacted to my expose about their gross violations of journalistic ethics. Have they decided to drop the complaint brought to the Texas Ethics Commission, embarrassed for getting caught red-handed trying to foist this unsavory goober on the public? Hardly. They've done a do-over. The original attack was so compromised that they've handed the "story" over to another "reporter." 

Nice that the do-over discloses the relationship between the subject/source of the "story" and the "news organization" that is "reporting" it. Thanks for acknowledging that you've already thrown away any semblance of journalistic credibility.

Does that really help legitimize this attack? 

I have no doubt that these folks, many tied to Americans for Prosperity (the notorious Koch brother front group), are scrambling to get enough online coverage from the usual not-too-choosy Far Right sites. With that, Fox News can justify picking up such a fetid tidbit. Some call that success. Others call it dirty tricks, bullying and intimidation.  

Now, for those interested in reality-based reality,  a few simple questions about the complaint itself.

This news brought to you by...

If this were substantive why didn't "AFP" Lou Ann Anderson, the "reporter" that filed it, simply REPORT her research findings as news? Then, others would have filed the complaint based on her reporting, right?  What did it serve to compromise whatever little credibility she and her "news organization" had by making the complaint herself? 

Let's Anderson explain.

“What I found were questions — questions that it doesn’t take being a CPA, a lawyer or other government policy analyst to recognize,” Anderson said. “Information (for the cited years) provided to the IRS is far more detailed than information provided to the Texas Ethics Commission as mandated by state law."

Anderson: "I Am AFP!"

So she compared the different filings - those to the IRS and those to for the Texas Ethics Commission.  Do you suppose that she checked to see if what's required for the IRS is DIFFERENT than the Texas Ethics Commission? Would ANYONE be surprised to discover that what's required by the IRS is more detailed than what the TEC requires? Texas is not noted for its rigor here. The State Integrity Investigation gave Texas a D+. One shortcoming?  Asset disclosure forms:

When average Texans request asset disclosure forms for state officers — known as personal financial statements — filed with the Texas Ethics Commission, they may be left with unanswered questions, said Smith of Public Citizen. “They lack essential detail,” he said of the reports.

Maybe Anderson isn't looking to sell this smear to "a CPA, a lawyer or other government policy analyst."  The less informed, the better.  

Oh, still no reply from the public relations handler at Franklin Center about my interview request with her. 

As I've mentioned before, I've encountered this kind of abuse before with folks connected to this crew. What we're watching unfold is a textbook case of a Far Right hit.

###

Tips? Suggestions? Ideas? Drop a line to carl (at) inanityofsanity (dot) com

KOCH BROTHER CONNECTION BEHIND LATEST WENDY ATTACK - UPDATED

Reporting the news - or making it up?

WOW!  Another hit-job in the ongoing smear campaign against Wendy Davis!

Who's behind the latest?  Would the Koch brother-connection come as any surprise?

Yesterday, the Right Wing echo chamber began reverberating with the latest cooked-up scandal against Wendy Davis. It started with a news item put out by the "Watchdog Wire":

CITIZEN FILES ETHICS COMPLAINT AGAINST WENDY DAVIS

Watchdog Texas State Editor Lou Ann Anderson

A Kevin Palmer reports that the complaint filed at the Texas Ethics Commission alleges that Wendy "knowingly misrepresented her assets on her annual Personal Financial Statements." Who is the citizen who brought the complaint?  She is just identified as " Lou Ann Anderson of Temple."  No additional information is provided.

As it happens, "Watchdog Wire" is part of the Franklin Center, a Far Right news organization. The local affiliate, Watchdog Texas, is edited by - Lou Ann Anderson!

I've e-mailed the reporter to ask if she edited the news item he wrote. 

Anderson has an interesting background.  She served as a Policy Analyst for Americans for Prosperity Texas. AFP, of course, is the notorious Koch Brother front group. 

Needless-to-say, it is an outrageous breach of journalistic ethics to fail to reveal the connection between the reporter/"news organization" and the party to a complaint they are "breaking the news" about.  I've seen this before with Franklin Center-connected folks. 

MORE LATER IN THIS BREAKING NEWS!

In the meantime, read this fascinating profile of the Franklin Center, "Partisan Hacks" by Laura McGann in the Washington Monthly.
UPDATE 6:19 CST:

I've now spoken with Kevin Palmer, the "reporter" who wrote the story.

Palmer was featured in a story last year in the Columbia Journalism Review about the Franklin Center. He's described as a recent Harvard College grad, but his other associations and activities are more interesting. It took a little effort to tag those down. His Linked In profile has been taken down...but just recently! It showed up in Google cache. As it turns out, he's part of the Koch Associate Program at the Charles Koch Institute. 

What do Koch Associates do?

Associates spend one day a week immersed in Market-Based Management® curriculum while working full-time in Washington, DC. The program not only connects you with full-time positions at non-profit partner organizations, but also includes weekly professional education. It’s a unique chance to combine your profession with your passion while expanding your knowledge, skills, and network.

So it would seem that Palmer finds himself at the Franklin Center courtesy of Charles Koch! Oh, and Palmer was also an "Immigration Intern" for the Tea Party Senator voted out in Massachusetts.

I spoke with Palmer in Alexandra, Virginia. His actual title is Communication Coordinator for the Franklin Center, a "journalism non-profit" as he describes it. Watchdog Wire Texas is "separate program." His primary function is ghostwriting opinion pieces for people the and - also for others outside the organization.

According to Palmer, Anderson is not an employee of the Franklin Center though she  receives a stipend from them as the Texas State Editor for Watchdog Wire. She edits and promotes the "citizen journalism" that they create.

Palmer said that Anderson gave him the story directly. There was no press release or apparently any other outreach to the media. When we initially spoke, Palmer offered to provide me Anderson's contact information. Instead, he emailed the email address for Michael Moroney, the Franklin Center's Director of Public Affairs. In a follow-up call, he said that any such inquiries had to be directed through that office.

"All our citizen reporters go through him first. He'll schedule the interview (with Anderson) for you," he said.

When I said that I didn't wish to contact her in her capacity as a Franklin Center reporter, that I wanted to talk to her about her complaint, he pulled back.  

"I have the right to withhold my source. Michael (Moroney) may or may not give it to you."

Asked about additional details on Anderson, he said she works full-time elsewhere. I attempted to contact her at what's apparently her employer, an advertising and marketing firm in Temple. A message left for her has not been returned, nor has an email sent to Moroney requesting an interview and a copy of the complaint.

Simple question:

Who's running this story? It certainly look like the Franklin Center's public relations director is handling the PR for it. Or is it Charles Koch?

###

Tips? Suggestions? Ideas? Drop a line to carl (at) inanityofsanity (dot) com.

DOUBTS ABOUT ABBOTT'S BIOGRAPHY - WITH AFTERWARD

Wendy with Maria Shriver at the trailer park on the TODAY Show

The Perry-Abbott machine is going berserk because Wendy Davis was two years older when she divorced than she'd said. And apparently, she did not spend sufficient time living in a trailer park to suit their tastes. This avoids the important question: does she know what it is to be poor, to live under adverse circumstances? The answer: a simple, unqualified YES.

Now, can the same be said of Greg Abbott? To find out, it would seem that there's some details in his story that require clarification. There's a claim made in the cover story in Texas Monthly last Fall that DOES NOT ring true for me - and I think you'll see why.  

"His father, Roger, was a proud University of Texas graduate who worked as a stockbroker and insurance agent; his mother, Doris, was a homemaker....

When Abbott wasn't cleaning animal cages

During Abbott’s sophomore year, his father died of a heart attack, which devastated the family. But it also gave him new admiration for his mother, who went to work in a real estate office to make ends meet. Abbott himself mowed lawns and worked at the local general store, where he stocked the shelves and cleaned the animal cages."

The impression here is that Abbott's father's death left his family in financial straits. The future candidate and his mother had to fend for themselves. His mother, a "homemaker" was forced into the workplace to "make ends meet" while he had to pitch in by juggling multiple part-time jobs while going to school. 

Now, let's unpack this a bit more. Abbott's father, "a stockbroker and insurance agent," apparently didn't have much in terms of assets or carry a decent life insurance policy to take care of his family? Terrible for an insurance agent to be uninsured or under-insured! No family or family money either to help, I guess. At least they had Social Security survivor benefits, right? No help from Social Security either?

To be sure, losing your father young is a terrible thing. Adding financial hardship on top of that, worse still. But is this really the situation that Abbott "overcame" in childhood? The "worked his way through school" tale seems to taper off in the Texas Monthly account while he was an undergrad at UT.  

Now, maybe this is all true. Perhaps, penniless, Abbott had to scrape his way through. Or it is perfectly possible that Abbott is not responsible for this impression. Did Brian D. Sweany, the Texas Monthly reporter, fluff this up from biography into hagiography. Fact-check anyone? What IS the reality here? 

Since the Perry-Abbott machine wants to raise doubts about Wendy Davis' hardscrabble days, let's have a look at his! The important question: does Abbott, like Wendy Davis,  know what it is to be poor? 

An over/under man?

Meanwhile, there's ANOTHER detail from the Texas Monthly tale that seems dubious to me. Admittedly this may be picayune. But as a gun aficionado reading a story about a gun braggadocio... Again, I'm open to being wrong here but....

The story opens with the writer describing his adventure shooting clay pigeons with the candidate. This is the central metaphor for his portrait of an "overcomer" who had faced devastating setbacks and come out on top.

"What was notable was his endurance. Everyone else took breaks; Abbott just kept blasting away. His shoulder, I caught myself thinking, is going to be black-and-blue tomorrow."

Now, the cover photo for the issue shows Abbott with an over/under shotgun. Abbott's shooting habits would be masochistic if he were using full-house 12-gauge loads in an over/under. But that doesn't seem to be the reality. The over-under looks to be just for show. Other pictures indicate that the weapon he actually used when the reporter was on hand is a Remington 1100. This makes for a VERY different shooting experience than an over/under. The gas-operated autoloader soaks up a great deal of what could be a punishing recoil with an over/under. 

The missing detail here is what they were using for shells. If they were using skeet loads, then this business about Abbott's "endurance" under fire is, at best, mistaken. Skeet loads, designed for shooting clay pigeons, are light and pleasant to shoot. Yes, you can go round-after-round without flinching or fear of mangling your shoulder. 

Maybe Abbott isn't a masochist (is that a bad thing?) and this is just a clever public relations image cooked up to deliver the desired result.

And if Abbott really IS a masochist? 

Here's another thing I learned when I cut my teeth skeet shooting at thirteen. I also used a Remington 1100 with the aforementioned skeet loads. But I preferred using a 20-gauge. When I really wanted to challenge myself, I opted for a 28-gauge. You see, the smaller-bore shotguns make it more difficult to powder the pigeons. It makes it a true test of skill. Using a 12-gauge takes the sport out of it. 

Perhaps the TRUE image for Abbott here is a man of mediocre talent. The Texas GOP political machine does a great job covering this up, but the reality remains. The best he can do is blast away blindly with their blunderbuss of Far Right ideology. That will do little to provide real solutions to the challenges we face in Texas. 

###

AFTERWARD:

Shortly after posting this, I followed-up by submitting the core of it to the Texas Monthly as a letter to the editor. The key question: does the candidate know what it is to have to make ends meet? 

The new boss at Texas Monthly

I was pleased and surprised when Sweany, the author and (at the time) the magazine's Senior Executive Editor, responded personally via email. We went back-and-forth several times as I tried to pin him down to answer the question. In short, the answer is no, Abbott has no personal experience of his mother facing financial difficulties after his father's death. Even so, he stands by his statement that she went to work at that time "to make ends meet." Apparently for Sweany, the phrase "to make ends meet," despite the commonly accepted meaning, does not imply financial hardship.

Also, in a follow-up phone conversation, I asked about the shotgun shoot

that frames his story. I wanted to get the answer to the question I raised in the posting about the shells used. Sweany, as it turns out, isn't very knowledgeable about firearms. He did say that he saved one of the spent shells as a souvenir. He said he'd get back to me as to whether it was high brass or low brass (high recoil, full-power or light skeet loads). No follow-up. He did not provide the answer despite repeat requests. 

Since, he has been promoted to Editor-in-Chief.
I should add that Sweany left the door open in our email exchange: "If you have new reporting, I'd love to hear it." Well, I made a trip to Duncanville, and found documentary evidence that raises questions about the fact-checking for his story. I wrote him about this - no reply.

###

Tips? Suggestions? Ideas? Drop a line to carl (at) inanityofsanity (dot) com.