Capitol Letters

What you don’t do, is do your job as a legislator worried that some troll will come along 10 years later or 20 years later and try to run a campaign against you.—Paul Sadler, U.S. Democratic Senate candidate

Just so there’s no confusion, the “troll” in question would be Republican nominee Ted Cruz. For future reference this is what happens when debate moderators decide to “throw out all the rules.” Last night the two U.S. Senate candidates faced each other, literally, in their first of two debates to supposedly discuss the very real issues facing Texans. But it quickly turned into a brass-knuckle fight over who’s the biggest liar and who’s crazier, not who would be the better senator. Cruz and Sadler, both lawyers, are clearly more comfortable cross-examining a hostile witness than actually making a case. And this was definitely a hostile atmosphere.

Not that you could really blame Sadler for his overly aggressive attitude. The latest Texas Lyceum poll, released yesterday, showed Cruz leading Sadler 50 to 24 percent, and no Democrat has won state office here since 1994. Those are rather daunting statistics especially when your opponent has quickly become a virtual powerhouse in Republican circles who’s moved beyond “rising star” to actual star, commanding the attention of national party figures and even landing a primetime speaking role at the Republican National Convention. Although the former solicitor general has never held elected office, that’s a clear advantage in this political climate.

The candidates were a little better at staying on message when there were helpful charts in front of them. Referring to Mitt Romney’s comments that 47 percent of Americans are dependent on government, Cruz was asked whether he believes that Texans receiving benefits are victims. That would be the 38 percent of Texans who pay no income tax, the 27 percent who collect Social Security, the 14 percent receiving retirement benefits and the 14 percent receiving food stamps, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Cruz’s automated reply?

“President Obama and his administration are trying to get as many Americans dependent on government so that the Democrats can stay in power for perpetuity.”

To which Sadler responded, “That’s the craziest thing I’ve ever heard in my life.” (This was just the first of a number of times that Sadler called Cruz crazy.) “You really are accusing the president of the United States of using a government program to manipulate people to not get a job, to be dependent on government for services?” Sadler asked. Of course not. As Cruz helpfully pointed out, he never once used the word “manipulate.”

On the issue of creating jobs, Sadler said he would take control of the national debate, which seems like an easy enough task, and Cruz said that he would remove barriers to small businesses: “What’s inherent in the ethos of Texas is we’re not looking for a handout.” Sadler saw this as another opportunity to pounce. “This idea that somehow Mr. Cruz is lecturing us on standing on your own feet, I find incredible,” he said. “You’ve spent most of your adult life working for the government and you haven’t created jobs, you haven’t owned your own business, I have.”

Cruz has pledged to repeal the Affordable Care Act “in its entirety” because it’s “designed to lead us to socialized care.” Not surprisingly Sadler called this the “worst legislative strategy you can possibly employ.”

Turning to immigration, the candidates were asked how they would handle the 1.6 million illegal immigrants living in Texas. Sadler supports a path to citizenship, a work permit program and the DREAM Act. Cruz said he supports a “staged approach” which would first involve securing the border. (Apparently this is as far as he’s gotten.) As for his opponent and his views on immigration, Cruz actually complimented him. “He is running a campaign with a great deal of courage,” Cruz said, “because he is running an unapologetically liberal campaign.”

Cruz also had an apology of sorts for Sadler. “I’m sorry you believe I’m a troll.” It’s always nice to end on a high note.

Incredible as it may seem there are still some issues that can rally bipartisan support. Take, for example, the federal Sexual Assault Forensic Evidence Registry Act (SAFER), legislation that would help eliminate the backlog of an estimated 400,000 untested rape kits nationwide by allocating millions of dollars to perform DNA testing. The bill, sponsored by U.S. Sen. John Cornyn and passed last week by the Senate Judiciary Committee, is essentially the same bill championed by Democratic state Sen. Wendy Davis (D-Fort Worth) during the last legislative session and signed into law.

Not that you can blame Cornyn for wanting to make a similar effort. As chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee he is faced with the formidable challenge of assuring female voters that his party really does care about women’s health and women’s issues and maybe even women in general. No easy task in the wake of Missouri Republican Todd Akin’s absurd comments on “legitimate rape” or the extreme language in the GOP party platform that allows for zero exceptions for abortion including in cases of rape, incest or the life of the mother—the same extreme pro-life position espoused by Paul Ryan. The war on contraception and family planning at both the federal and state levels has alienated women even more, at least if we believe un-un-skewed polling.

There’s little political risk involved in testing rape kits.

Unless, perhaps, you’re a conservative Texas House member in a close race for a state Senate seat. Like Cornyn’s legislation, Wendy Davis’ bill received broad bipartisan support. It passed unanimously in the Senate and all but eight House members voted for it, including Davis’ challenger state Rep. Mark Shelton.

(The other seven members voting no were fellow Republicans Leo Berman, Tom Craddick, Drew Darby, Dan Flynn, John Frullo, Tryon Lewis and Barbara Nash.)

Shelton’s opposition is especially puzzling considering that he’s been a pediatrician for 20 years. (His current title is director of pediatric infectious diseases at Cook Children’s Hospital but he’s still practicing full time.) A typical pediatrician’s patient population would include at least some adolescents—the age group that continues to have the highest rates of rape and sexual assault. To help physicians address the crisis, the American Academy of Pediatrics even issued guidelines on how to best deal with sexual assault victims and any associated legal implications, including reporting cases of statutory rape. According to the guidelines, pediatricians treating adolescent victims “should be trained in the forensic procedures required for documentation and collection of evidence or should refer to an emergency department or rape crisis center.” Such evidence would include rape kits.

Even taking Shelton’s extreme fiscal conservatism into account, Davis’s bill was found to have zero significant fiscal implication to the state. Some law enforcement agencies, however, including the San Antonio Police Department, expressed concern about a lack of resources to test the backlogged kits, which costs an estimated $1,000 per kit. The Fort Worth Police Department—in Shelton’s district—spoke in favor of the bill. One of Shelton’s supporters, Congresswoman Kay Granger, appeared with Cornyn in Fort Worth to show her support for the federal act. The Center for Human Identification at the University of North Texas Health Science Center already provides assistance to Fort Worth police in reducing their backlogs. And in recent years, it’s been working. Out of 960 kits processed by the center 102 suspects were identified, which led to 47 arrests and 36 felony convictions. Still, as we reported earlier this year, some agencies have yet to comply with the law’s reporting requirements.

Although Dr. Shelton hasn’t historically been an advocate for women’s health issues, it’s hard to imagine that anyone could be against helping victims of rape and sexual assault. But his thinking remains a mystery, as his staff couldn’t be reached for comment, despite leaving four messages over the past two days via email and phone. Maybe it was concern for local law enforcement. Maybe he just doesn’t like Wendy Davis. Or maybe he was overly tired and wasn’t aware of what bill he was voting on. There must be a perfectly reasonable explanation. We just don’t know what it is.

Last week Texas Republican heavyweights, from Gov. Rick Perry to Senate nominee and Latino rising star Ted Cruz, weighed in on the riots in Libya almost as quickly as Mitt Romney. The riots, triggered by an amateur soft porn-like YouTube movie depicting the prophet Muhammad in a derogatory way, have since spread across the Middle East, prompting Obama opponents to seize this ripe political opportunity to attack the president and his policies as completely inept.

Before even grasping the depth of the volatile situation—which left four Americans dead including the U.S. ambassador to Libya—Romney released a statement criticizing the Obama administration for its “disgraceful” and “conciliatory” response and accused the president of being an apologist, a popular Fox News talking point that comes in handy for nearly all areas of foreign policy. Sure, it might not be true but it’s an easy and surprisingly effective way to rally the Republican faithful and neocon hardliners. (Congressman Michael McCaul of Austin called on the administration “to end its timid foreign policy and suspend being an apologist for actions of the United States around the world.”)

In a hastily arranged news conference, Romney doubled down on his comments saying that it was “disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.” According to TIME’s Mark Halperin, Romney’s comments are “likely to be seen as one of the most craven and ill-advised tactical moves in this entire campaign.”

The day after the killings at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Perry released a harsh statement saying that Obama’s “impotent foreign policy” and “shameful lack of leadership” contributed to the burning of an American flag in Egypt, which “helped to embolden our enemies in the region.” The governor also accused Obama of trying to “lead from behind” in Libya and “allowing Libyan rockets and artillery to be scattered to the terrorist winds.” In the past Perry has referred to Obama’s Middle East policy as simultaneously naïve, arrogant, misguided and dangerous.

Few people are aware that Perry is actually kind of a big deal in the Middle East. While in Israel in 2007 to receive the Friend of Zion award, he boasted of the “special kinship” Texas has with the Israeli people, saying, “We are both independent-minded and self-reliant, and our history is grounded in strong stands against impossible odds.” (Cue secession talk here.)

As the Dallas Morning News reported, Ted Cruz saved his remarks for like-minded conservatives at last weekend’s Values Voters Summit, where he said that the president has weakened the U.S. and essentially abandoned Israel. Tough talk for someone who refers to himself as the “Cruz Missile.”

“There are radicals throughout the world—Islamic terrorists that would murder each and every one of us,” Cruz said. “And it says something that we have a President of the United States that is utterly unable to utter the words ‘radical Islamic terrorist.’ If memory serves, it wasn’t a random collection of Boy Scouts on those airplanes [on 9/11].”

Cruz added that “bullies and tyrants don’t respect weakness.” He should know.

But leave it to Congressman Louie Gohmert last Thursday to really work in the crazy:

“We have a leader who takes a minute and a half out on a big whoop-de-do campaign stop, to say ‘Wait, wait, wait, it’s been a tough week, we’ve lost some people … an ambassador. Ah, now back to the fundraising and the fun and the cheering for me.’”

Gohmert added that he wants a commander-in-chief who says, “You know what, you took out our people, we’re taking you out. And you’re going to learn, you don’t come after our people.”

Brilliant. I assume the Tyler congressman will be on the front lines.

Why are we having to fight in 2012 against politicians who want to end access to birth control? It’s like we woke up in a bad episode of Mad Men.—Cecile Richards at the Democratic National Convention, September 6, 2012

If you don’t like what’s being said, change the conversation.—Don Draper

This week’s Democratic National Convention showed why a majority of women voters say they’re for Obama. From equal pay to comprehensive health care to reproductive rights, the Democratic Party this election seems a lot less hostile to women than the GOP. There was no need for the first lady to pull an Ann Romney and proclaim like a cheerleader with a megaphone, “I love women!” In their party platform, Republicans can’t mask their utter lack of respect for women and their firm belief that women are completely incapable of making responsible choices.

As for the war on reproductive rights, Texas is quite literally ground zero. On Tuesday, the Department of State Health Services held a public hearing concerning the state-funded Women’s Health Program and the subsequent defunding of Planned Parenthood. The controversial ban, approved by the Legislature last session, was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge before being appealed by Attorney General Greg Abbott.

In her remarks Wednesday night, Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards praised the Obama for “trusting women” on everything from health insurance to contraception. (If elected Mitt Romney has pledged to cut all federal family planning funds to the organization.) Instead of focusing on abortion, which makes up a tiny portion—3 percent, according to its most recent annual report—of Planned Parenthood services, Richards expanded upon the organization’s overall mission to provide access to affordable health screenings and contraception.

But Texas can’t see beyond that 3 percent, despite the fact that current federal and state law already prohibit tax dollars from funding abortions. And many other states are following suit, with like-minded anti-woman initiatives such as mandating invasive transvaginal sonograms for women seeking abortions.

In an interview with the Daily Beast, Richards warned, “If you want to see what a Romney presidency might be like, look at Texas.”

The Republican party platform opposes abortion across the board, even in cases of rape, incest or the life of the mother. It also includes the so-called “human life amendment” (also known as the “personhood amendment”), which would overturn Roe v. Wade and possibly affect such fertility treatments as in vitro fertilization.

Meanwhile, as Bloomberg View columnist Margaret Carlson pointed out, the Democrats have removed the sentence “Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare” from its party platform for the past two elections. Being pro-choice should never be confused with being pro-abortion. No one wants to see more abortions. But unfortunately the pro-life movement is also anti-contraception and anti-sex education (unless it’s abstinence-based), all of which leads to more unplanned pregnancies.

Of course, women’s health is broader than one organization or one issue. Almost every speech at the convention highlighted the Affordable Care Act and its impact on women regarding preexisting conditions, gender discrimination and preventive services. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, embraced the plan she called a badge of honor:

Before Obamacare, some [insurance companies] wouldn’t cover women’s most basic needs, like contraception and maternity care, but would still charge us up to 50 percent more than men. They said women who had C-sections or survived breast cancer or even domestic violence had “pre-existing conditions.” But this president made it illegal to discriminate against women… Being a woman is no longer a pre-existing condition. That’s what change looks like.

It’s hard to argue with that, no matter where you stand on abortion.

I want to tell you a love story. It’s the story of all of us. It’s a love story of freedom.
—Republican Senate nominee Ted Cruz at the Republican National Convention, August 28

If you were eager to watch Ted Cruz’s speech last night you most likely ended up watching it on his website since none of the major cable networks—not even Fox!—considered it important enough to cut away from their punditry roundtables and interviews with random sparkle-studded delegates. Is that any way to treat a rising Republican star, this year’s Marco Rubio, if you will? Cruz, the only Texan with a prominent role at the convention, has two big things going for him: He’s an über-conservative and he’s Latino. He’d be a Republican triple-threat if he wasn’t part Canadian.

Of course it’s tough to follow a man as gifted as former presidential candidate Rick Santorum, but Cruz tried his best. He first thanked his “thousands and thousands” of liberty-loving tea party activists who propelled him to victory. (And make no mistake, this speech was for them. You can tell by the repeated invoking of the founding fathers.)

“We are seeing a great awakening, a national movement, of ‘We the People,’ brought together by what unites us—a shared love of liberty—and an understanding of the unlimited potential of free men and free women.

“I want to tell you a love story. It’s the story of all of us. It’s a love story of freedom. It’s the story of our founding fathers who fought and bled for freedom then crafted the most miraculous political document ever conceived, the Constitution.”

Luckily for those scholars in the audience, Cruz’s speech was not just a love story but a lesson in history as well, with solemn nods to General Santa Ana, the Greatest Generation, Nazis, communism, civil rights, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and, naturally, Ronald Reagan, whose name in Republican circles calls for genuflection or at the very least Tebowing.

Cruz also shared his personal family history, all of which we’ve heard before, especially that of his Cuban father who fled to America with just $100 sewn into his underwear. He then muttered a few lines in broken Spanish to prove that he’s not really Canadian. (In an interview with WFAA News in Dallas yesterday, Texas Democratic Party chairman Gilberto Hinojosa questioned whether Cruz is actually Hispanic.)

Talking about his father gave Cruz a perfect opportunity to talk about his anti-immigration stance.

“Fifty-five years ago, when my dad was a penniless teenager, thank God some well-meaning bureaucrat didn’t put his arm around him and say let me take care of you. Let me give you a government check and make you dependent on government. And by the way, don’t bother learning English. That would have been utterly destructive.” Cruz also accused the Obama campaign trying to “divide America,” including “telling Hispanics that we’re not welcome here.”

Speaking of not rolling out the welcome mat, Cruz told Telemundo on Monday that he thinks Romney should immediately end the administration’s deferred action policy and reinstate deportations of undocumented young people.

Overall Cruz’s speech seemed awkward. He walked back and forth rubbing his hands together like he was interviewing for The Tonight Show, breaking into uncomfortable chuckles and smirks to polite applause. I would expect more from someone who’s won debate championships and successfully argued cases in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. But clearly humor is not Cruz’s strong suit. Earlier this week he made a joke to Republican delegates at a conservative rally saying, “We have so many things to be thankful for. So many blessings, including [that] we can be thankful for Hurricane Isaac. If nothing else, it kept Joe Biden away.” (Biden postponed his trip to Orlando due to the tropical storm.) Politics 101: If you’re not funny, don’t try to be. See Mitt Romney’s laugh-out-loud birther crack or any callous remarks by one-time comedian Dennis Miller.

Considering that the party’s main goal coming out of the convention was to have Ann Romney “humanize” her cyborg-like husband, Cruz was an interesting choice for prime speaking slot. Appearing on Meet the Press just two weeks ago, he expressed serious doubts about Romney’s chances.

“My view for months has been if this presidential race focuses on issues, if it focuses on the economy, on President Obama’s abysmal economic record, Republicans win. If it’s a battle of personalities, Republicans will lose.”

So much for the love story.