And Here I Thought Iraq Was More Complicated

The geniuses at the Lone Star Times blog have come up with an explanation of our reversal of fortunes in Iraq:

Long before the president’s change in strategy we call the surge, those men and women that have volunteered to protect us began to die at a higher rate. Why? What happened in March 2006?

The primary elections were held and campaigning for the November 2006 elections began in earnest. The Democratic Party chose to base their strategy around the Iraq war, using every means possible to cast it in a negative light. The terrorists, emboldened by this strategy, were able to convince neighboring countries to supply them with better, more powerful weapons, killing our service personnel at an ever increasing rate.

Of course, an assertion like this is hard to swallow, but never fear: they have a graph! The graph (below) purports to show the correlation between primary elections and U.S. casualties.

Of course, this is just the anti-free speech, anti-American rhetoric of the Reactionary Right at its worst: the Father Figure is our protector and guide, and to question his judgment or actions is to "embolden the enemy." The Iraqi insurgents apparently sit around in their houses all day, listening to Uncle Ed tell stories of how Harry Reid smote the Infidel Bush with his words of treason and appeasement.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

New Yorker Article on Republican Implosion

Jeffrey Goldberg has a terrific article in the latest New Yorker about the meltdown within the Republican Party. It includes the infamous DeLay rationale that his serial adultery was morally superior to Gingrich's serial adultery at the time both were impeaching President Clinton for getting a hummer:

The difference between his own adultery and Gingrich’s, he said, “is that I was no longer committing adultery by that time, the impeachment trial. There’s a big difference.” He added, “Also, I had returned to Christ and repented my sins by that time.”

He'd stopped beating his wife, in other words. The article goes on to describe the loathing DeLay and Gingrich have for each other. Good for them. If God is just, they'll be chained together in Hell for eternity.

David Dewhurst Is Smoking Something

The wonderful Polly Ross Hughes has a San Antonio Express-News interview with David Dewhurst in which he laments that the Senate did not pass a voter ID bill this session:

"I was disappointed we did not get a voter ID program out there," said Dewhurst, who asserted there's evidence of "thousands and thousands and thousands" of non-citizens voting in Texas. "This is a no-brainer."

But opponents argued such a bill would discourage low-income Texans, who tend to vote for Democrats, from going to the polls. Such voters can't afford to drive or to purchase state-issued ID cards.

Does he really believe this? If so, he is delusional. If not, then he is pandering to the most xenophobic and most partisan nutjobs in his party, and should be ashamed of himself.

Tom Craddick on YouTube

Nice little video from Burnt Orange Report. Check it out.

Turner = Craddick's Stalking Horse

Paul Burka has an interesting post about the real motivation behind Sly Turner's race for Speaker. As Inigo Montoya says in The Princess Bride, "let me sum up:"

More likely, this is not a play for speaker at all. It is a play to protect the Craddick Ds from a primary challenge. Turner's candidacy gives the Craddick Ds the opportunity to pledge to a Democrat. This removes the main argument that can be used against the Craddick Ds in the primary. Then, safely reelected, they can deliver their votes to Craddick in January 09.

As a commenter suggested, Democratic primary voters should make their candidates pledge NOT to vote for Craddick.

How Does Sly Turner Get 76 Votes?

There's an argument to be made that Sly Turner could actually make a great Speaker. He's intelligent, articulate, and effective. As an African American, his ascension as Speaker of the Texas House would rewrite all the history books.

Whether he can ever be Speaker under these circumstances is another question entirely. What's his base? The Craddick Ds? OK, that's about 15 people, a half dozen of whom will be in the race of their lives next spring. The anti-Craddick Ds? Not likely, unless he convinces them that it's possible for a Democrat to be Speaker, but only if he's the candidate. The Craddick loyalists? He has to convince them of a slightly different proposition: that a Democrat is likely, even inevitable, to become Speaker and their best hope of power-sharing lies in a "moderate" like himself.

No one would have guessed, at this point in 2005, that the Republicans would lose six seats before the next session began. While it's too early to chart all the dynamics of the 2008 House elections, Democrats certainly have reason to hope they'll pick up more seats -- maybe even a majority (especially after Craddick's performance over the weekend, which will be replayed in countless campaign ads and YouTube excerpts over the next 18 months).

Will the next Speaker be a Republican or a Democrat, and how will Sly Turner fit into that calculus? It'll be interesting to watch.

Sylvester Turner to Run for Speaker

Several news organizations are about to report that Sylvester Turner has filed his paperwork to run for Speaker in 2009. More to come ...

UPDATE 1: Kristen Mack of the Houston Chronicle gets the story up at 12:30 p.m.:

May 30, 2007
Sylvester Turner files for Speaker
State Rep. Sylvester Turner makes it official. He officially defected from House Speaker Tom Craddick's camp when he filed his paper work today for the 2009 House Speaker's race. Here's part of his release:
"I don't ever want to have another legislative session like the one just completed where taking care of the people's business took a back seat to political agendas," Turner said. "We have too many problems in this state to waste most of a legislative session on political agendas that will not provide insurance to children with no health care, that will not provide lower electric rates to seniors and those with little income, that will not provide more funding for mental health programs."
"I have worked effectively in the House under a Democratic majority," Turner said, "and I have worked effectively in the House under a Republican majority. I have sought to treat every member with the utmost respect and I have worked to operate the House with the utmost degree of integrity.
"I sincerely hope that over the next 18 months, members will evaluate and assess my abilities," Turner continued. "I believe I am the best person to serve as Speaker in 2009 and I hope the members will give me the opportunity to serve as their Speaker."

UPDATE 2: Harvey Kronberg's Quorum Report gets the story up at 12:56 p.m.:
May 30, 2007 12:56 PM
SYLVESTER TURNER FILES TO RUN FOR SPEAKER IN 2009
Key Craddick supporter jumps ship
In his statetment, Sylvester Turner (D-Houston) said, "“I don’t ever want to have another legislative session like the one just completed where taking care of the people’s business took a back seat to political agendas. We have too many problems in this state to waste most of a legislative session on political agendas that do not include providing lower electric rates to the low-income and elderly or more funding for mental health programs."
“I have worked effectively in the House under a Democratic majority,” Turner said, “and I have worked effectively in the House under a Republican majority. I have sought to treat every member with the utmost respect and I have worked to operate the House with the utmost degree of integrity."
“I sincerely hope that over the next 18 months, members will evaluate and assess my abilities,” Turner continued. “I believe I am the best person to serve as Speaker in 2009 and I hope the members will give me the opportunity to serve as their Speaker.”
Check out Turner's complete statement

UPDATE 3: Burnt Orange Report gets the story up at 1:10 p.m. BOR's Matt Glazer has an interesting theory about why Turner, Craddick's Speaker Pro Tem and staunchest defender, is running:

Interestingly, Turner's early support for Craddick is a main reason Craddick remained Speaker. Some speculation is that Craddick sees the writing on the wall, and is not 100% sure Republicans can maintain control of the House.
This unease has caused Craddick to ask Turner to run so he can still have influence over the next Speaker. There are only 4 people that believe that the rule of the Speaker is absolute, Craddick, Turner, Keel, and Wilson. Makes sense that Craddick would want his legacy to continue.

UPDATE 4: Charles Kuffner at Off the Kuff also has the story.

Voters Dodge Republican Bullet - Barely

Real drama on the Senate floor this morning. Senator Troy Fraser brought up H.B. 218, the Voter I.D. bill. This bill starts with the premise that, Somewhere Out There, elections and the Democratic Process Itself are being sabotaged by an "epidemic" (to quote the truly ambitious and absurd Attorney General of Texas) of voter fraud, of apparently limitless varieties: dead voters, double voters, illegal alien voters, illegal Really Alien (Extraterrestrial) voters.

It does not deter Fraser and his fellow Shiites at all that there is almost no evidence whatever of such voter fraud, much less to the extent it would take to actually affect the outcome of elections. When two consultants hired by the Election Assistance Commission - the body created by the HAVA legislation to oversee efforts to improve the integrity and reliability of elections - submitted a preliminary report saying there was little evidence of voter fraud, the Bush Administration acted in predictable fashion: they tried to suppress it, then watered down the final report suggesting the results were inconclusive and further study was needed. More locally, a two-year, million-dollar-plus "task force" on voter fraud led by the aforementioned Abbott has produced a dozen indictments, according to a report by the Lone Star Project.

In any case, when Fraser brought up the bill several Senators were off the floor. After some questions were asked, the Senate voted on whether to bring up the bill under its two-thirds rule. The initial vote was 19-9, meaning the bill could be debated. Almost immediately, however, John Whitmire, who'd been recorded as absent on the vote, challenged it, saying he'd been circulating on the floor and had indicated his vote to Senate Secretary Patsy Spaw. After some heated discussion, Dewhurst offered to allow the vote to be "verified," saying it would make no difference since both Whitmire and Republican Senator Glenn Hegar had returned to the floor. With Democratic Senator Carlos Uresti out sick, the Rs would still win, 20-10. Somehow, though, Uresti voted and on the verification, the motion to suspend failed, 20-11.

Thirteen days to go, and look to the Republicans to feel they got cheated on this one and dirty tricks (like waiting until a Democratic Senator is visiting his doctor or somesuch) are OK. In the balance hang the voting rights of elderly, poor and minority Texans who are less likely to be carrying around the photo IDs required by the bill.

Watching That Sausage Flow ...

The House is running through its calendar this afternoon, passing Senate bills at the rate of one a minute or so. I noticed that the chair keeps saying, "The question is on passage to engrossment of Senate Bill ____," and "The ayes have it. Senate Bill ___ is passed to engrossment."

ENGROSSMENT is the act of preparing a formal copy of a bill as passed, with amendments rolled in to the final form. If a bill passes one chamber and moves to the next, and is amended in that chamber so as to be different from the version that came over, then it is also engrossed in that chamber. In other words, H.B. 123 is engrossed in the House, goes over to the Senate, is amended, and then an engrossed version is prepared in the Senate. Eventually, those two versions are reconciled (or not) in a conference committee.

ENROLLMENT is the act of preparing the final copy of a bill, reflecting the content that passed in identical form in both chambers. At that point, the finalized (enrolled) copy is signed by the presiding officers of both chambers and sent to the Governor for his action.

Go here for definitions of engrossment and enrollment in the Texas legislative context. For a discussion of engrossment and enrollment in the (federal) Congressional context, see here.

So here's the question: if the version that passes the second chamber is identical to the one passing the first, has that bill "passed to enrollment?" In other words, if no changes have been made in the Senate to a House bill, isn't that bill "enrolled" when it passes the Senate?

I'd like to see the parliamentarians of the House and Senate address this one.

Do I know how to party, or what?