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

ABBOTT'S "CLEAN CAMPAIGN" A DIRTY LIE - PART II

Abbott: a self-serving public servant

For all the petty nastiness noted before, the most grotesque reality that belies Greg Abbott's claim to have taken the high road is what we should properly call his voter suppression law. To call it "Voter ID" is just to buy into GOP spin that masks the reality. 

First, some background. 

Abbott's Voter Suppression Law started out as a national GOP project. As the Texas Tribune's Ross Ramsey recently reported, Republican legislators in Texas did their best to hide the damage they intended to inflict while the measure was debated and discussed during the 2011 legislative session. Then-Sen. Tommy Williams researched how many would be disenfranchised - some 500,000 to 844,000 voters would be left without the credentials needed to exercise their constitutional rights. Williams "requested the information and then did not share it with fellow lawmakers." 

How's THAT for honest, open government? Oh, did I mention that Williams was considered one of the few MODERATE Republicans in the Texas Senate?

Recently, Abbott earned the right to have this law renamed after him given his personal and professional triumph in keeping it alive for his race against Wendy Davis. Just before early voting, he successfully petitioned the Supreme Court to leave it in place this one last time - despite the court striking down a similar law in Wisconsin as unconstitutional (see also my previous look at Abbott's statements about this issue, and those who have criticized him for it).

Now that Abbott has, once again, used his public office to serve his partisan interests, what to do about it? Today at a rally in San Antonio, Wendy Davis saw this as a rallying cry. 

What I'm encouraging people to do is to respect and honor...those voices who want to be a part of this process but who Greg Abbott denied the opportunity to do so. Respect and honor them by coming and voting and electing a Governor who's going to restore their voices (see video below). 

President Obama, too, singled out Abbott's Voter Suppression Law  in a call  to Texas Democrats this morning. He suggested that this, along with many other issues, should encourage their get-out-the-vote efforts.

Texas Republicans passed a voter ID law that a Federal judge ruled unconstitutional calling it intentionally discriminatory and likening it to a poll tax - and they're fighting to keep it in place. I hope these things get you fired up

(see clip below for audio):

MEANWHILE, in an alternate reality....

The Abbott campaign has a VERY different take on who's encouraging voter turnout. Campaign Manager Sarah Floeke's spin would be comical if it weren't so disturbingly removed from reality. She makes an astounding claim in an email from the campaign last night:

The Democrats are crowing because voter turnout is down. According to Battleground Texas senior adviser and former Obama national field director Jeremy Bird, "The early vote numbers this year are very encouraging for Wendy Davis and the Democratic ticket – and all signs point to this being a fight to the finish."

Disturbing distortions

How Floeke distorts reality into an unrecognizable, self-serving goober gives a good indication as to what an Abbott administration might be like. So let's unpack this.

Floeke pulled the quote from Bird's memo last Friday that early voting was way up - presumably because of his organization's efforts. So he was actually "crowing" because of what he thought was INCREASED voter turnout. It turns out his figures were off-the-mark, based on inaccurate figures as the Texas Tribune reports. 

Now, watch closely for the sleight-of-hand...

Floeke's takes Bird's quote and uses it as if it were about the LOWER turnout figures - numbers that should be of great concern to him, hardly a cause for celebration. For this, I nominate her for an honorary degree from the James O'Keefe School of Professional Ethics. 

Again, it's hard not to laugh at Floeke's amateurish attempt at deception. What's not funny is that such dishonesty by a senior member of a major campaign hardly registered because it's just business-as-usual there. It should be seen as a disqualification for public service. But then, Abbott Campaign isn't really about wanting to serve the public. 

BONUS:  Wendy Davis revs up supporters for final block-walks in San Antonio this morning:

###

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

Twitter: @inanityofsanity

ABBOTT'S "CLEAN CAMPAIGN" A DIRTY LIE - PART I

"He's a clean old man"

What may be the closing talking point for the Abbott campaign is, perhaps, the most dishonest. The latest iteration? Matt Mackowiak's "Wendy Davis’ harsh and failing campaign" in the Austin American Statesman. The boldest, bald-faced lie in his attack? Comparing that evil to her angelic opponent:

Contrast that to Abbott, who has run an almost completely positive campaign at a breakneck pace, with thoughtful policy proposals on education, transportation, ethics and border security outlined months ago.

But Mackowiak isn't his own man - he's just a spokesman in the Texas GOP's echo chamber. He's parroting Greg Abbott's pitch that recently made the rounds on Fox News. First, on Sean Hanity:

Listen, my reaction is if she wants to attack a guy in a wheelchair, that's her prerogative. As for me, I'm running a different type of campaign. I'm running a campaign that's focused on solving the problems of Texans, like securing the border, keeping Texas number one for jobs, continue fighting against Barack Obama's EPA that's crushing jobs in Texas. So I will focus on the future of Texas, while my opponent continues to attack me.

Then - prepare for a sense of deja vu - on Lou Dobbs:

My reaction is she can attack a guy in a wheelchair if she wants to, but I don't think it's going to sell real well. My focus Lou is going to be on casting a positive vision as the next Governor of Texas about what I will achieve by creating jobs by securing the border. So she can attack me while I attack the challenges that our fellow Texans face.

Since this is Abbott's closing note, we should judge whether it is a sour one. It comes down to this: is Greg Abbott running an "almost completely positive campaign" or, when he or his surrogates claim this, is it just another example of his problematic relationship with the truth?

Consider the evidence. 

First, Abbott's YouTube channel. In the last 8 months, he's posted some 88 videos including web ads, debate clips and the like. By my count, at least 40 of them are direct attacks on Wendy Davis. These include:

Another ray of light on Abbott's YouTube Channel

• Wendy Davis: Unethical and Unfit for Texas

• Sen. Wendy Davis: Forgetting to be Ethical

• Wendy Davis: The Price isn't Right

Or what about the barrage of emails I get from the campaign, especially those from his Campaign Director, Sarah Floreke. Here's a few highlights:

Yet another positive
message from
Abbott's Campaign 

I wanted to make sure you knew about this shocking new revelation: at another Chicago fundraiser, Sen. Davis was raising money for an extreme liberal member of the Democratic Socialists of America who wants to ban handguns.

Apparently, late-term abortion is a cause for celebration for the Wendy Davis campaign.

Sen. Wendy Davis is pulling yet another page out of President Obama’s playbook: hiding chunks of campaign cash and donors behind a smoke screen.

Sen. Wendy Davis had a terrible showing at the first debate, melting down and yelling over the moderator. Last night, it happened again.

Can you believe that the Democrats have picked a candidate for governor whose legal work is currently part of an FBI investigation? That’s right. Ethically-challenged Sen. Wendy Davis is entangled in conflicts of interest. Her legal work for a tollway agency part of an investigation by the FBI—and she won’t tell Texans why.

So, you be the judge: Is Greg Abbott running an "almost completely positive campaign" or, when he or his surrogates claim this, is it just another example of his problematic relationship with the truth?

###

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

Twitter: @inanityofsanity

BEN BRADLEE: FROM "ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN" TO "THE GODFATHER"

"All the Presidents Men": a pale imitation of Bradlee's reality

It's a sad day in the media world. We mark the passing of Ben Bradlee, the legendary editor of the Washington Post, and note the decrepitude that now defines the industry. 

Dave McKinney's resignation today from the Chicago Sun-Times shows how the mighty have fallen. Here in Texas, Greg Abbot's laughable endorsement by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram shows what happens when the Fourth Estate stops questioning the powerful and engages in wishful thinking instead. 

First, there's little for me to add about Bradlee that David Carr hasn't said in his beautiful tribute that puts the man in the context of the business.

...it is tough to imagine a newspaperman ever playing the kind of outsize role that he once did in Washington. Newspapers, and people’s regard for them, have shrunk since he ran The Post.

David Remick's recollections, too, are not to be missed. Others will likely be sharing their experiences. But what is his true legacy?

Remembering Bradlee takes us to a bygone era when his wielding of the First Amendment fulfilled the vision of the Founding Fathers. He and his intrepid reporters proved mightier than the corrupt and crazed Nixon White House. After, conservatives vowed NEVER to allow that to happen again. Since, they have successfully created an alternate media universe, essentially a Black Hole cut off from reality that encompasses much of talk radio, Fox News and the various "think tanks" and the like that feed them fodder for the faithful.

But what of the so-called "mainstream media"? The intense gravitation of the dark forces affect them, too. Worse, perhaps, are the financial travails that have trashed the business. The relentless need to placate a divided populace so as not to alienate audiences makes it difficult to say much of anything worth hearing. 

That was Then - and Now?

During my time in Illinois this summer, I watched the barrage of billionaire Bruce Rauner's advertising filling the airwaves in the hotly contested Gubernatorial race. Now, his campaign is in a statistical dead-heat with incumbent Pat Quinn. In such a situation, reputable and disreputable characters are scrambling to tip the balance by giving the undecided some reason to vote one way or another.

How Rauner would run Illinois?

Now, a detailed, well-researched piece unflattering to Rauner has hit the streets, a joint investigation by the Sun-Times and NBC5. All those sharing the byline, Dave McKinney, Carol Marin and Don Mosley are seasoned, reputable reporters.

What the investigative report did was offer the voters a window into Rauner's business practices. Apparently, threats and intimidation are tools of his trade as was alleged in a lawsuit filed against him.

...Rauner told another board member if Kirk sued over her firing, "I will bury her ... I will bankrupt her with legal fees. I don't know if she has a family or not but if she does she better think twice about this.

Wow - quite a get for these reporters, right?

McKinney's smile has soured

Well, not so much for Dave McKinney, the chief statehouse reporter for the Sun-Times. After threats and intimidation from Rauner's campaign, his paper pulled him from the beat. Oh, and the paper reversed its policy to not endorse candidates by endorsing...do I even have to say who?

What's McKinney's reply? He's quit the Sun-Times, but not without unleashing a broadside. He details what went on behind-the-scenes to arrive at this conclusion:

Readers of the Sun-Times need to be able to trust the paper. They need to know a wall exists between owners and the newsroom to preserve the integrity of what is published. A breach in that wall exists at the Sun-Times.

It’s had a chilling effect in the newsroom. While I don’t speak for my colleagues, I’m aware that many share my concern. I’m convinced this newspaper no longer has the backs of reporters like me.

Meanwhile, in Texas...

The Star-Telegram's editorial board's endorsement of Greg Abbott, too, is telling. Or, actually, shocking.

Ultimately, the race must hinge on leadership. The candidate best able to outline and articulate an inclusive vision for all Texans and then lead the state in that direction deserves to be governor. The Star-Telegram Editorial Board believes that candidate is Greg Abbott.

Hmmmm...the Texas GOP that has done everything it can to gerrymander and voter-suppress minorities has "an inclusive vision for all Texans and (will) lead the state in that direction"?

Er...

Next whopper:

It’s important to note that despite his close association with Gov. Rick Perry, Abbott would be a departure.

What evidence does the Star-Telegram muster to substantiate this claim?

...a careful look at his website reveals a series of thoughtful and thorough policy prescriptions...

Sorry, this fellow has a lengthy public record that should be considered more authoritative than campaign promises.

Like Duvall, Abbott has stood behind his Boss

As noted elsewhere, Abbott is properly deemed a "continuity candidate." If elected, he's essentially another term of the Perry regime. He's like Robert Duvall's character, Tom Hagen, in The Godfather. He's the mob attorney that's engineered the operation faithfully. So what happens if he gets to run the racket? 

Where the endorsement goes completely over-the-top is with this wishful thought:

The questions surrounding his lack of oversight of the Texas Enterprise Fund are troubling. He will have to reassure Texans that he is committed to leading an accountable and transparent government.

Sorry, but a Ben Bradlee wouldn't think that the proper "answer" to questions of Abbott's fundamental lack of integrity here - and possible criminality - isn't "reassurances" that he isn't a crook. And a newspaper's role isn't to swallow such self-serving pabulum whole then spew it out. Those questions demand REAL answers...and REAL newspapers do the hard work to get them.

###

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

ABBOTT DISSES DISABILITY RIGHTS - PART II

Abbott's hallmark - that of a leader or a deceiver? 

The Dallas Morning News' endorsement of Greg Abbott over Wendy Davis boils down to this: extremists are holding Texas hostage. It's too troublesome to take a stand against them, so we should surrender to them. Despite his extremist record, Abbott will somehow moderate GOP extremism.  

Of course, the DMN editorial board does attempt to dress this up. What have they seen to indicate that Abbott is the better pick for chief executive? 

"Davis has no price tag for her education package; Abbott says his would cost $775.5 million. Such specifics are the hallmark of an organized leader."

But does his "hallmark" hold up when it comes to disability rights? As we'll see, the DMN editorial board may wish to reconsider its endorsement after checking Abbott's "specifics" regarding home care for the disabled. 

Let me take up where I left off with my interview with Dennis Borel, Executive Director of CTD, the Coalition of Texans with Disabilities. He says that providing proper compensation for home care workers is key. 

"We have a workforce crisis for people in our community for people that want to stay in their own home. Like any public policy, if you ignore it for long time, you've got a lot of catching up to do. We've got more than a decade of catching up now," said Borel.

According to Borel, the cause of the crisis is simple, These workers, part of the state's Medicaid program, are grossly underpaid. That means the quality of care is substandard since, if nothing else, staff turnover is horrendous. Last year, Borel says that one of the state's largest agencies for home care workers reported a 100% turnover. Everyone threw in the towel to look for something better than $7.50/hr with NO benefits - no health insurance, sick days, paid vacations - NOTHING. 

Think about the realities here. You don't have to be a healthcare professional to know that having a parade of people pass through the homes of the state's disabled is grotesque. Even if these workers are unfailingly professional, capable and courteous (nothing short of miraculous at $7.50/hr), the fact that the client has to constantly restart this relationship is, by definition, unsettling. Constancy of care and care providers is essential. These SHOULD NOT be "pass through" jobs. 

Let me put this relationship in a different context that conservatives might better appreciate. Providing home care isn't for everyone. You might even say it's a calling, what some of my Christian friends would properly recognize as a ministry. Let's push this pastoral parallel a bit further. How healthy is a congregation that has a parade of ministers pass through? What is the quality of the relationship that the members of the congregation enjoy with these care providers? Isn't this fundamentally different from congregations that enjoy the blessings of a long, settled ministry? Isn't the same dynamic happening here in the ministry of those called to care for the disabled in their homes?

"Well, ministers aren't that concerned about money," some might object. That's a nice thought - you can reward someone's selfless sacrifice by heaping financial hardship on them. Aside from being morally bankrupt, it simply doesn't work. Ask anyone who has done hands-on church management about the role ministerial compensation plays in retaining good ministers.

So what do Wendy Davis and Greg Abbott say about home care compensation?

CTD's candidate forum questionnaire put it to them plainly:

Many believe that the current base wage of $7.50 per hour is a major reason for the growing shortage of community attendants as well as the current high turnover rate. What would you do to help raise wages and benefits?

Wendy Davis said that this is part of the larger minimum wage issue. 

I believe all hardworking Texans deserve to be paid an honest day’s wage for an honest day’s work. No Texan can support a family at a $7.50 hourly wage. That is why I support increasing our minimum wage to $10.10 per hour. That would be an important step for millions of Texans, including those currently earning base pay as community attendants. As governor, I will also work with the Legislature to determine an appropriate benefits standard for the community attendants who are doing such important work for Texans.

Always check the candidate's references

And Greg Abbott? 

As part of my Healthy Texans plan, I have called for increasing community attendant professionals’ wages.

Well, sure.....but how much of an increase? How does it compare to Wendy's $10.10/hr? 

Let's have a look at his "Healthy Texans plan." Surely he must provide greater detail there, right? 

But under "Disability Services," that's not what we find.

Recommendation: In order to recruit and retain personal attendants, and provide home- and community-based living options, increase pay for personal attendants.

No specifics. 

Worse, it is fair to say that his answer for the CTD's questionnaire is deceptive. He dodges the issue by referring voters interested in disability rights to a policy document that, he implies, would offer specifics. But there are none. 

So what are we to make of the Dallas Morning News picking Abbott for his specific policy positions - especially his willingness to put price tags on his proposals? "Such specifics are the hallmark of an organized leader," they claim. 

Well, with disability rights, Abbott does worse than merely leave out specifics. He gave the disability community a FALSE AND MISLEADING IMPRESSION about having a specific pay increase proposal for home care workers. That isn't the "hallmark of an organized leader." But it is a good indication of what we should expect of an Abbott administration.

***

Another issue for another time - how Abbott's jihad for "sovereign immunity" seeks to deprive the handicapped of their rights and exposes a fundamental dishonesty. 

###

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

ABBOTT DISSES DISABILITY RIGHTS - PART I

A sincere snear?

How to feel about Wendy Davis' so-called "wheelchair" ad? Given that opinions are mostly divided along partisan lines, let's not forget when Abbott's camp attempted to manufacture similar outrage. Remember James O'Keefe's "fizzle of a scandal"? 

As Jonathan Tilove closes his story in the Austin American Statesman: 

In late January, the American-Statesman compared the raw and edited footage of a Project Veritas video that purported to show Battleground Texas volunteers and Wendy Davis supporters mocking Greg Abbott’s being in a wheelchair, and found that the tapes had been edited in a misleading manner, including moving the sound of laughter to produce the desired effect. 

So the Abbott camp is at it again.

That being said, I do think something valuable can come of the attention here. It's an opportunity to talk about the rights of those in the disability community, some three million people here in Texas.  

I reached out to some leading disability rights organizations to see what's their take about the "scandal."  Some stepped away, being apolitical not-for-profits unwilling to take sides in what some see as little more than a nasty political squabble. But I had a very interesting conversation this morning with Dennis Borel, Executive Director of CTD, the Coalition of Texans with Disabilities, the state's oldest disability rights organization. 

Borel's take on all this is a breath of fresh air.

Sure enough, Borel has fielded many calls, emails and text messages from the disability community about Wendy's ad. Were they up-in-arms against her as the Abbott campaign would have us believe?  Hardly. 

"I've gotten the same response we had when Abbott had his wheelchair ad.  Now that both sides have used this, let's get past imagery and get to issues!" Borel said.

Both ads, he says, don't even touch what's important. Abbott's use of the imagery was to highlight his personal traits. Wendy's ad just focused on so-called "tort reform." That's a miss on both counts for Borel.

What would be on target?  Discussing the need for adequate pay for home care workers and getting clear about Abbott's record and position on what's known as "sovereign immunity," fighting to exempt state government from the Americans for Disability Act (ADA). I'll be going into detail about these in Part II. 

First, let's just look at who's willing to even address disability rights issues.

On September 24, CTD offered all the statewide candidates that should have an interest in disability issues an opportunity participate in a forum. The event was held in Austin and some 300 people turned up. What's most telling is the sharp contrast between the Republican and Democratic candidate participation. The Democrats running for Governor, Lt. Governor and Attorney General - Wendy Davis, Leticia Van de Putte and Sam Houston - all showed up to answer questions in person after filling out candidate questionnaires detailing their positions on key issues.  Their Republican opponents, Abbott, Dan Patrick and Ken Paxon, were all no-shows. To his credit, Abbott did return the questionnaire. The other Republicans didn't even demonstrate that minimal interest, much less respect (check the candidate responses here).

Still, the details of Abbott's no-show are telling. Maybe the event just didn't fit into his schedule? Not so says Borel.

We had been in conversation for months with his campaign. They knew the date well in advance. In fact the scheduler said it was too far in advance as she was not yet scheduling September. After declining to appear, we offered a Skype live interview, then even a taped interview. Ultimately, the message was that he had no time at all in September.

So Abbott willfully, deliberately ducked this forum to avoid exposing himself to questions from disabled Texans. There's good reason for him to do so as we'll examine in Part II.  

###

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

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

TALKING BACK TO THE TEXAS TRIB'S TRIBTALK

One of the great disappointments of the Internet Age has been the failure to create forums to foster respectful, insightful debate and discussion. Trolls trash conversation in a give-and-get that's an "eye for an eye that leaves the whole world blind." 

Recently, the Texas Tribune launched "TribTalk," their long-awaited "digital forum for dialogue and debate about the day’s news. Think of it as an op-ed page for the 21st century."

TribTalk's editor, David Muto, has the challenging task of extracting civil discussion from the toxic stew that is Texas politics. The Trib is working with University of Texas' "Engaging News Project" to see about developing new strategies to unlock the potential that has, thus far, been untapped. 

This project is, by design, a work-in-progress. Like fracking, the techniques now deployed may have unintended consequences requiring attention. Thus far, one post in particular seems particularly problematic. If, as Muto says, his goal is to foster "thoughtful and courteous discourse on the issues that matter," this needs to be addressed.

GOP "Apologist" Sylvester

Sherry Sylvester's "The Problem with 'Abortion Barbie'" purports to be a call for Conservatives to "hold (themselves) to the standard of behavior that is required of Christians." Here, the grotesque "Abortion Barbie" prank pulled by an Abbott supporter to assault Wendy Davis (explored by yours truly in detail) should be a wakeup call: 

There is no way for us to hold the moral high ground if our tactics include name-calling and sexist attacks, even though those tactics are often used against us.

So this is an "apology" for an Abbott supporter's violation of the norms and standards for civil behavior? 

It begins by accusing Democrats of "name-calling and sexist attacks." This thinly-veiled hit-piece goes downhill from there. The specious spite spewed under the guise of Christian Charity alternates between finger-pointing and finger-wagging. 

Among the gems:

• Democrats "may be as committed to their faith as (conservatives) are," but you'd never know it. 

• Wendy Davis is a "big-government-supporting tax-and-spender" promoting "over-the-top pro-abortion positions."

• Davis' supporters at her "pro-abortion filibuster" were "hateful, in the true sense of the word."

• "Our liberal opponents frequently litter their arguments with name-calling and condescension, for which they often get a pass." 

• The Democrat's "fast-talking spokesmouths have adopted sarcasm and hatefulness as a communications strategy." 

• "...outnumbered Democrats rambled on for hours, alternating between falsehoods, hyperbole and cheap shots" at an unnamed committee hearing last legislative session.

On top of all this, Sylvester offers a revisionist history aimed at discrediting Leticia Van de Putte. She says that, like Wendy's other supporters at the filibuster, the Senator was also hateful and contemptuous. Her celebrated moment that night calling out GOP bullying? Just "crowd-pandering and (an)opportunistic comment."

This is "thoughtful and courteous discourse on the issues that matter"???

When I first saw this piece, I simply posted a comment providing a link to my original reporting on the Abbott supporter's abortion prank. Then, after some reflection, I figured I should weigh in on this in some detail. I didn't want to simply expose Sylvester's "apology." The "issues that matter" here? How to take her "discussion" to a different level and a different direction?

It seemed to me that this raises the problem of Christianizing for political gain. I submitted "The Naked Narcissism of Public Piety" Friday morning. Yes, it's a pointed piece - provocative, in fact. I was careful to strike a proper tone, an appropriate match to Sylvester's.

Late in the afternoon, I got my rejection from Muto:

Thanks for submitting! Unfortunately, we only have room for one or two guest columns per week and this doesn't fit our editorial needs right now, but thanks for your interest and keep us in mind in the future.

A structural problem needing adjustment

As a professional writer, I live with rejection. No big deal. Move onto the next pitch! But I see a structural issue here. If they publish the likes of "The Problem with 'Abortion Barbie'," then they should reserve space for rebuttal above-and-beyond online comments. No, they don't have to take MY piece. But someone should be able to respond, at the very least like a letter to the editor.

So I wrote back:

I DO hope that someone will be permitted to answer Ms. Sylvester's hit piece in some detail. That really is necessary.

I'm not sure if you're aware of how inflammatory her accusations are - like characterizing Wendy Davis as "pro abortion" - that's really over-the-top.

I know that you're just getting started, but if you allow third-parties like that to do surrogate work for campaigns, it seems appropriate that there's balance. 

Let's see what Muto has to say. Honestly, I think he was mistaken to publish Sylvester's hit-piece in the first place. It has NO PLACE in a publication fostering "thoughtful and courteous discourse on the issues that matter." But, having made the mistake of accepting it, will TribTalk accept its responsibility to offer "thoughtful and courteous" rebuttal?

###

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

Twitter: @inanityofsanity