The Texas Observer

If you haven’t done it yet, click on over to Floor Pass, our new page for everything from Planet Legislature. We’re blogging updates from the floor, keeping up on bad bills, profiling Capitol people – all while posting hard-hitting commentary on the whole spectacle as we endeavor to keep our legislators honest during the session.

We’ll still be posting here, whenever we cover something other than the Lege, so don’t get rid of your bookmarks. Just add another one.

So what on Earth could John Cornyn be thinking?

It seems every few days our junior U.S. senator — and soon-to-be senior senator if and when Kay Bailey Hutchison resigns her office to run for governor — is making national news with a head-scratching, overtly partisan, stick-the Democrats-in-the-eye kind of move.

You’ll recall that Cornyn single-handedly delayed Hillary Clinton’s confirmation as secretary of state on inauguration day. He then put off the confirmation of Eric Holder, who would be the nation’s first African-American attorney general, by at least a week. (The Los Angeles Times rips Cornyn for that here.) Most recently, he went a little over the top in criticizing the Obama administration’s reversal of Bush’s Gitmo and detainee abuse policies.

You have to wonder: is all this good for Texas? Does it help the state for our soon-to-be senior senator to spit in the collective face of the Democratic Party, which now dominates the Upper Chamber? The Clinton and Holder moves amounted to nothing in the end, but they won’t soon be forgotten, especially by the Clintons.

Moreover, Cornyn, in his new role as head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, has said he plans to try to take out Majority Leader Harry Reid next cycle. That’s Cornyn’s role now, but will that come at a cost for Texas’ interests in the Senate? The majority leader, after all, has a lot of power over the Senate’s agenda.

Keep in mind that Cornyn’s antics are mostly aimed at raising money. His main task as head of the NRSC is to scrounge up campaign money for GOP Senate candidates. There’s a lot of pressure to out-fund-raise the Democrats this cycle after Republicans were severely outspent in Senate races in 2008 and lost badly.

Cornyn’s attacks on Clinton, Holder and Obama were aimed at firing up the Republican base to donate, says Jonathan Allen, who covers Congress for Congressional Quarterly. He says that most senators probably brushed off Cornyn’s antics as just part of the game. “That’s pretty much par for the course in Washington,” he says.

While Reid’s office certainly won’t do Cornyn any favors, Allen says, Texas does benefit from Cornyn’s ascent — even if he’s in the minority. In the Senate, the minority party is entitled to a cetain number of earmarks. With Cornyn in the leadership, Texas will get its share of federal projects. Moreover, if and when the GOP retakes the Senate, Cornyn would acquire even more power.

Of course, now that Cornyn is head of the NRSC, he must perform well. His continued rise depends greatly on Republicans gaining ground in the Senate in 2010.

January 31 is the two-year anniversary of the death of Molly Ivins, the Observer’s former editor, reporter, columnist and guiding spirit. To mark the date, we offer these reflections from Betsy Moon, Ivins’ former assistant and “chief of stuff” from 2001 to 2007.

The question I have been asked most often during the last two years is, “What would Molly think about this?” Molly Ivins would have loved this election. She would have loved the beautiful sight of “We the People” finally stepping up to become the real deciders. She would have loved the drama, the comedy and the characters.

We miss her regular twice-weekly comments and insights, and want to hear her dissect, slice and dice, and make fun of the events and revelations of the week. No one could do it like she did. She made us feel like we weren’t alone. She made us want to be our better selves and stand up and use our power. She would be so proud that we finally woke up and worked to make this happen.

In many of her lectures, she would exhort her audience to believe in their power. She’d say: “I hear people whine: ‘I can’t do anything. I’m just one person.’ ” Then she’d lift her head high and quote from the Declaration of Independence in her Barbara Jordon voice and remind them, “As a U.S. citizen, you have more political power than most humans who’ve ever lived on this earth.”

In fact, we know how she would have felt, because she was as prescient about this election as she was about all the tragedies of the Bush years. Carlton Carl, CEO/publisher at Molly’s beloved Observer, recalls her saying after Barack Obama’s 2004 speech at the Democratic convention, “You know … that young man could be president some day.”

Before Obama announced his candidacy, Chicago Magazine asked a number of luminaries if they thought he should run. Opinions varied. Molly was succinct and direct, and with her usual wit and certainty said: “Yes, he should run. He’s the only Democrat with any Elvis to him.”

And, in her column on Jan. 20, 2006, she said: “It’s about political courage and heroes, and when a country is desperate for leadership. There are times when regular politics will not do, and this is one of those times. There are times a country is so tired of bull that only the truth can provide relief. If no one in conventional-wisdom politics has the courage to speak up and say what needs to be said, then you go out and find some obscure junior senator … with the guts to do it.” She was speaking about Gene McCarthy then, but it might as well have been Barack Obama.
She’d be so happy that her beloved Constitution (she donated one speech a month to groups working to preserve and maintain the First Amendment) is in safer hands — that some of the worst things ever done in our name are over. She’d love that Obama began his community organizing knowing that power lies in all of us united, and that he continues to remind us that we are the deciders.

I saw and heard many interviews after Nov. 4 and during inaugural celebrations with people who all said they wished their mother or father or grandmother or friend had been here to witness this history in the making. Tens of thousands of us wished that Molly could have been here to see it.

I choose to believe she and all of them did see it because they live on in our hearts, minds and actions. Molly is honored with awards, lectures and scholarships in her name. Many of her readers formed “Pots & Pans” brigades, following the advice in her final two columns to take to the streets and demand an end to the Iraq war. She always signed her books and her letters with, “Raise more hell,” and you can make her live on by doing just that.

She lives in everyone who took courage in who they are and what they thought when they read her columns and books, and knew they weren’t alone and they weren’t crazy. She lives on in the Observer and the ACLU (aclu.org), to whom she left a large portion of her estate.

In a letter for the ACLU, she says: “I don’t have any children, so I’ve decided to claim all the future freedom-fighters and hell-raisers as my kin. I figure freedom and justice beat having my name in marble any day. Besides, if there is another life after this one, think how much we’ll get to laugh watching it all.”

Ken Bunting, an old friend of Molly’s who’s now associate publisher of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, said of Molly on Election Day, “I’m not much of a believer, but I think our friend is looking down and smiling right along with Barack’s grandma.” You know, I think he is right.

“Help us keep this rare and independent flower of journalism blooming.” — Molly Ivins

It’s really too bad George W. Bush couldn’t have driven down to Austin from Dallas tonight. He might have enjoyed the C-Span-recorded panel discussion at the UT Law School: “The Post-Guantanamo Era: A Dialogue on the Law and Policy of Detention and Counterterrorism.” Three legal experts discussed the thorny question of what becomes of Guantanamo, the detainees held there, and, really, the future of counterterrorism now that the rule of law is - presumably - being restored. The word “morass” came up a lot. Morasses…Yup, that’s a good summation of Bush’s legacy.

In fact, one of the panelists had just left the Bush administration eight days ago. That would be John Bellinger, (most recently) the legal adviser to former Secretary of State Condi Rice. Belllinger told the capacity crowd that while he was unlikely to write a tell-all memoir any time soon he did have something to reveal publicly for the first time. “I have at least for five years supported strongly… the closure of Guantanamo.” Bellinger said he had put up a fight within the administration since 2004, evidently to no avail. By 2004, he said that he had concluded that the damage to the country from keeping Gitmo open strongly outweighed the benefits in his mind. Not surprisingly then, Bellinger supports the executive order signed by President Obama that orders Gitmo to be shuttered within one year. “[B]ut it is going to be extremely difficult,” Bellinger said.

One problem, of course, is what to do with the 242 ‘enemy combatants’ still there, not to mention the 600 at Bagram AFB in Afghanistan and the 10,000-plus in Iraq. Obama has given a cabinet-level task force six months to come up with some answers but the panel moderator, UT visiting law prof Bobby Chesney, argued that litigation moving through the court system will force Obama’s hand before then. There are principally two sticky issues to address. One, what to do with the prisoners who may pose a threat but could be released if they are charged within the existing criminal justice system. Two, what to do with detainees who should be released but can’t be repatriated to their home country.

As a pressing case study the panelists discussed the 17 Uighurs - a Muslim religious and ethnic minority in China - currently held at Gitmo, who, if returned to China, would almost certainly be persecuted. They apparently pose no threat to the U.S. (they were training to fight the Chinese government, not the U.S., when they were picked up in Afghanistan) but where do they go? The Obama administration has singaled that they won’t return them to China for fear of persecution. Panelist Steven Vladeck, a law prof at American University, argued that since they are no longer considered enemy combatants their fate should be decided within the confines of the immigration system. Perhaps they could even apply for asylum in the U.S.

The third panelist, Benjamin Wittes of the Brookings Institute, said the Uighurs constituted an “utter anomaly” and were not emblematic of the larger detainee population. Many Gitmo prisoners will simply and rightfully be repatriated to their home countries; others will be prosecuted in the federal court system. It is here that the three panelists waded into the deepest waters. Wittes suggested that the difficulty of getting convictions in a regular criminal court may mean that truly dangerous individuals will go free - a growing bugaboo of certain conservatives. He criticized human rights organizations for not recognizing that these individuals may attack Afghan or Iraqi civilians upon their return. “Who gets killed?” was how Wittes delicately put it.

…Which led to a discussion about the propriety of the Orwellian-named “national security courts,” courts which would theoretically operate under a different set of rules and standards and hear terror cases. The three panelists seemed to agree that such courts shouldn’t be allowed to accept evidence gained from torture or operate in secrecy. However, Vladeck said the very notion of creating a separate justice system for alleged terrorists presupposes that certain very basic, very difficult questions have already been answered - for example, what legal basis is there for detaining any ‘terrorist’ in the future? The three agreed that a new legal framework would need to be developed by the Obama administration, perhaps at the same time as - and in conjunction with - the decisions about existing detainees at Gitmo, Bagram, and elsewhere.

Bellinger said to look for Congress being forced to address these detention issues this year. “There will be a battle royale,” he said.

Social conservatives on the State Board of Education once again took up their crusade this afternoon against teaching the theory of evolution to Texas high school students.

The headline event of today’s meeting was a vote on whether to require science class textbooks to explore the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution. The motion to include those words failed — at least on this day. It was a momentary defeat for social conservatives. The State Board of Education has two more chances to vote on the textbook standards before they’re finalized in March. Right now, the pro-evolution side has a slim one-vote advantage (8-7), so the results could certainly change.

The winning margin was provided by San Antonio Democrat Rick Agosto, who many viewed as the board’s swing vote. On this day at least, he voted to keep the “strengths and weaknesses” language out of Texas science curriculum.

Many scientists see the “strength and weaknesses” issue as a backdoor way to attack the theory of evolution and perhaps slip into classrooms a few words about creationism or Intelligent Design or other non-scientific explanations of human origins. (For more background, read our story on the board’s November meeting here — hint: it’s the second item.)

Agosto told reporters after the vote that he heard from many people in his district on the issue and that he wanted to maintain the textbook standards designed by teachers and a panel of scientists. Agosto could still change his mind.

Dan Quinn, spokesman with the Texas Freedom Network, said he was “cautiously optimistic” about the next two votes — one more tomorrow and a final vote in March.

Social conservatives lost the main event, but they may have won the day. They prevailed on a series of preliminary votes that — if finalized — could dilute the teaching of evolution in Texas schools.

Barbara Cargill, board member from The Woodlands, altered the standards for the state’s new Earth and Space Science class. The most eye-catching change requires students to question the fossil record. Cargill, part of the board’s solid seven-member Christian right faction, tacked on a phrase that requires students to “assess the arguments for and against universal common descent in light of fossil evidence.”

That may sound rather mundane. But the theory of universal common descent is central to evolutionary theory — and is supported by nearly all the world’s biologists. Most of the “arguments against” this widely accepted scientific concept come from creationists and Intelligent Design proponents. Cargill’s amendment could allow those arguments into Texas’ science classrooms.

Not to be outdone, Chair Don McLeroy of College Station, an avowed creationist, monkeyed with the “science concepts” section of the biology standards. McLeroy added language that asks students to “describe the sufficiency or insufficiency of common ancestry to explain sudden appearance, stasis and sequential nature of groups in the fossil record.”

After introducing his new language, McLeroy spent 15 minutes trying to back up his claims that the theory of adaptation and natural selection is flawed and not necessarily supported by parts of the fossil record. His arguments consisted of quotes from books by Stephen Jay Gould and other scientists that McLeroy ripped out of context to support his thesis.

Cargill and McLeroy’s additions also must survive two more rounds of voting — one tomorrow and another in March.

If these amendments make it into the state’s science textbooks, Texas students may hear a lot about the “weaknesses” of evolution after all.

by REEVE HAMILTON and SUSAN PETERSON

Our Inauguration night began with two black musicians playing accordian and washboard in front of a store near New Iberia, Louisiana in 1938. The photograph, taken by Russell Lee for the long-defunct Farm Security Administration, was one of 32 historical photos of “the Black experience in America” on display at “The Road to Hope” photography exhibit that opened Tuesday night at the New East Gallery, the first stop on our whirlwind tour of Austin’s Inauguration celebrations. Austin non-profit Diverse Arts sponsored the exhibit curated by Neil Coleman and Tim Taylor (below, left to right).

Diverse Arts founding director Harold McMillan said the exhibit was about “black folks striving in America.”

“Within that struggle and pain, there’s a really rich culture,” McMillan said.

Then it was on to The Dog and Duck Pub, where Austin residents Sam Webber and Hank Cathey (below, left to right) came by looking for some Inauguration action. Cathey and Webber watched the Inauguration ceremony at work.

“We set up a TV, passed the tissues around, and had red, white, and blue doughnuts,” Cathey said. “I was really glad to see strings and poetry at the inauguration - like we’re a country with culture.”

Down the street, Austinites Natalie Johnson and Alani Mundie (below, left to right, with another attendee) were pleasantly surprised by the turnout at the MoveOn.org Inaugural Bash they hosted at El Mercado. Over 50 people attended from all walks of life, ranging in age from under five years to over 60.

Attendee Anne Williams said her hope for the new administration was universal health insurance.

“I’m unable to obtain individual health insurance because I’m a kidney transplant recipient. I can only be on a group plan.” Her prescriptions alone would cost her $2500 each month if not for her group insurance.

Her favorite moment of the inauguration? “Watching George get on the helicopter.”

Ricki Klos, who brought her whole family to El Mercado to celebrate, concurred, adding, “I’m just sad that he’s hanging his hat back in Texas.”

The Travis County Democratic Party’s celebration at Antone’s was one of the livelier ones. State Rep. Valinda Bolton, D-Austin, (below) was in attendance. She watched the inauguration with fourth and fifth graders at Sunset Valley Elementary School.

“They were very excited,” Bolton said. “They seemed to have a pretty clear sense of what they were witnessing.”

When asked if she was looking forward to being back in session on Thursday, Bolton, who was also one of the honorary hosts at a Travis County Democratic Party celebration at the Driskill on Saturday, said, “Yes. I’m going to wear way more comfortable shoes.”

Though we missed State Rep. Jim Dunnam (D-Waco) and The Bad Precedents, his band, we got there in time to hear Guy Forsyth sing, “It’s been a long, long, long, long…long time since I felt fine.”The crowd clearly shared the sentiment.

Round Rock resident Elizabeth Thompson, who was the first black student to attend her school in Buffalo, New York, said her favorite moment of the inauguration was when Obama said his full name, Barack Hussein Obama, during the swearing-in.

“He said his entire name,” she said. “He’s the embodiment of all of us. He’s telling us, ‘This is who I am.’”

We caught up with Thompson and her friend Brenda Johnson (below, right to left) at The Texas Presidential Inauguration Celebration, a black tie affair at the Four Seasons hotel, our final stop of the evening.

Overall, the revelers around Austin on January 20, 2009 were a thoughtful group. With the collective sense that many burdens of the past had been shed in a single day, though wary that many challenges lie ahead, eyes turned to the future and all the promises it holds.

George W. Bush left office as the most unpopular president in the history of modern polling, but you’d have never known it from the hero’s welcome he received today at a late-afternoon rally in Midland. Thousands of West Texans waving cardboard W’s packed Centennial Plaza to welcome home the now-former president and first lady.

The Bushes flew to Midland from Washington following today’s inauguration of Barack Obama. Along for the plane ride were Bush’s parents, his two daughters and several current and former staffers, including Education Secretary (and Texan) Margaret Spellings, and the ever-loyal former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

The waiting crowd included Gov. Rick Perry, Attorney General Greg Abbott, whom Bush patted on the head as he walked on stage, and former Texas House Speaker Tom Craddick.

Bush received a wild standing ovation when he took the stage. He began his remarks by complimenting his successor: “A good man took the oath of office today, and we all offer our prayers for his success.”

He then offered an unapologetic defense of his two terms in office — mixed with a little reminiscing. “I’m coming home with my head held high and a sense of accomplishment,” he said. History, he said, would render the verdict on his time in office. “Popularity is as fleeting as the Texas wind. … When I get home tonight and look in the mirror, I’m not going to regret what I see.”

Centennial Plaza is the same place where, eight years ago, Bush gave his final speech as governor before heading to Washington.

“The presidency was a joyous experience,” he said. “But as good as it was, nothing compares to Texas at sunset. Today I get to say six words I’ve been waiting a long time to say, ‘It is good to be home.’”

He may have waited a long time to say those words, but it couldn’t be longer than most of us waited to hear them.