The Texas Observer

Well, I wasn’t going to do it. But after chronicling the travails of Puddles/Panchito for several months, it seemed fitting to write an epilogue about the little Shih Tzu that brought down the mayor of a South Texas town.

After a 10-month tussle over custody of the lovable little yapper, the Gutierrez family finally emerged victorious yesterday. State District Judge Richard Terrell ruled in favor of the family after chastising both parties for behaving like idiots.

After all, Grace Saenz-Lopez—now the ex-mayor of Alice—gave up her political career for the pint-sized ball of fluff. She was also indicted along with her twin sister in an alleged plot to hide the dog from the Gutierrez family. The two still face criminal charges and will have their hearing next week. The whole affair became such a—ahem—doggone debacle that it made headlines in the New York Times and the nationally syndicated Mike and Juliet Show.

I’m glad it’s nearly over, because I’m running out of dog-related puns.

The question now is, can the ex-Mayor let sleeping dogs lie?

As you may have heard, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, having aced his merit badge in self-hairstyling, has waded into the treacherous waters of ostensible authorship with On My Honor: Why the American Values of the Boy Scouts Are Worth Fighting For. The book, a bit astoundingly, debuted at #1 on the Washington Post bestseller list Monday (according to a press release paid for by Texans for Rick Perry), and it may have received a boost — in the lucrative homophobe market, anyhow — from a Sunday New York Times Magazine interview with the governor by a clearly astounded Deborah Solomon, excerpted below.

Solomon: On My Honor “draws on your experience as an Eagle Scout and champions the values of the Boy Scouts of America, to whom you are donating your royalties.”

Perry: “Yes, to their legal defense fund.”

Solomon: “Which has been fighting the A.C.L.U., to keep gays out of the scouts. Why do you see that as a worthy cause?”

Perry: “I am pretty clear about this one. Scouting ought to be about building character, not about sex. Period. Precious few parents enroll their boys in the Scouts to get a crash course in sexual orientation.”

Solomon: “Why do you think a homosexual would be more likely to bring the subject of sex into a conversation than a heterosexual?”

Perry: “Well, the ban in scouting applies to scout leaders. When you have a clearly open homosexual scout leader, the scouts are going to talk about it. And they’re not there to learn about that. They’re there to learn about what it means to be loyal and trustworthy and thrifty.”

Solomon: “But don’t you think that homosexuals might also be interested in being loyal and thrifty?”

Perry: “The argument that gets made is that homosexuality is about sex. Do you agree?”

Solomon: “No”

Perry: “Well, then, why don’t they call it something else?”

Like what, absurd reductivism?

We will let the governor — famously and a bit tiresomely both an Eagle Scout and the father of an Eagle Scout, and not even in the least tiny bit gay — slide on his title’s sentence-ending preposition (his grammar badge must be pending). But there’s no getting past the wrongheadedness of his message, which seems to be something along the lines of gay people are obsessed with sex and if they’re allowed anywhere near impressionable young minds, then you don’t even want to know what tomorrow’s Webelos will be doing after school in the garage with all those fancy knots.

That message wasn’t lost on Equality Texas, which Tuesday issued a statement decrying Perry’s narrowminded bigotry and — gotcha! — unseemly preoocupation with sex. The group invites gay scouts to attend Perry’s three scheduled Texas booksignings this week.

in case you’re interested, that’s Tuesday, Feb. 26 at 7:30 p.m. at Border’s Books in San Antonio; Wednesday, Feb. 27, at 7 p.m. at BookPeople in Austin; and Thursday, Feb. 28 at 7:30 at Borders Books in Dallas. Expect to find Perry set up at a signing table in the farthest possible corner from the Gay & Lesbian Literature section. Because you know, you can catch those cooties just by breathing too deeply in their proximity.

And Perry should know. Rumors about his own possibly closeted orientation have circulated for years, prompting the governor in 2004 to take the extraordinary step of denying them publicly.

So far no one has been cynical enough to suggest that the Perry book’s square-jawed broadside at the gay and gay-friendly communities is perhaps nothing more than a self-serving bulwark against that very rumor, which bulwark might come in handy if those other rumors — of Perry’s ambition for national office — ever turn out to be true.

But finally, lest mockery get the best of us, let’s pause just a moment to credit Gov. Perry for not encouraging his dog to write a book, as other governors have done. We all know what dogs have on their dirty little dog brains, and it’s certainly not loyalty and trust. And we’re pretty sure there’s no merit badge for it, either.

Trying to exploit any advantage they can find, perceived or otherwise, the Clinton campaign had a conference call this afternoon to try to squeeze the last bit of juice from Kirk Watson’s painful performance on MSNBC last night. Their featured guest: Laredo Democratic Congressman Henry Cuellar.

But before we go to the Clinton attack, here is some of Watson’s efforts at a mea culpa.

So . . . That really happened.

On Tuesday night, after an important and historic victory in the Wisconsin Presidential Primary by Senator Barack Obama, I appeared on the MSNBC post-election program. “Hardball” host Chris Matthews (who is, it turns out, as ferocious as they say), began grilling me on Senator Obama’s legislative record.

And my mind went blank. I expected to be asked about the primary that night, or the big one coming up in Texas on March 4, or just about anything else in the news. When the subject changed so emphatically, I reached for information that millions of my fellow Obama supporters could recite by heart, and I couldn’t summon it.

My most unfortunate gaffe is not, in any way, a comment on Senator Obama, his substantial record, or the great opportunity we all share to elect him President of the United States.

Both Cuellar and Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson went out of their way to spare Watson from criticism as they used his words, or lack thereof, to attack Obama. “Without mentioning any names because this person is a friend of mine, I know that last night they asked one of his supporters on national TV and asked him if he could name one accomplishment and he was asked repeatedly and couldn’t come up with one accomplishment,” said Cuellar after a recitation of Clinton accomplishments ranging from “making sure children get immunized” to health care assistance to the troops.

Wolfson, after describing Watson as “an outstanding representative on behalf of his constituents,” added that the whole episode “speaks a lot less about the strength of Senator Watson’s memory than it does about the fact that Senator Obama is not running on any significant legislative accomplishments… He is running on the strength of his oratory and the strength of his promises.” (The Obama campaign has consistently refused to apologize for their candidate’s ability to make a good speech. Obama’s people also point to their varied plans for the country.)

It was inevitable that questions would arise about Cuellar as a surrogate. His loyalty to the Democratic Party is open to question. After all, he’s been endorsed by the Club for Growth, served in Gov. Rick Perry’s administration as secretary of state, and endorsed George W. Bush for president in 2000.

“I do consider myself a conservative Democrat,” Cuellar said. “This is the beauty about Hillary Clinton. She has shown herself to be able to work with conservative Democrats like myself and Republicans. There is a lot of people who are trying to purify the Democratic party.”

Clinton is apparently not one of them.

Wolfson did a little two-stepping on the subject. “The Democratic Party is a diverse party. We have strong supporters from all wings of the Democratic Party from across this country,” he said. “Of course, she isn’t always going to agree with all her supporters and her supporters aren’t always going to agree with everything she stands for…”

Within minutes of Austin state Sen. Kirk Watson’s cringe-inducing performance on MSNBC last night, Austin for Obama sent out the following e-mail to supporters:

Kirk Watson just appeared on MSNBC to back Barack Obama and bombed. He could not name ONE accomplishment Obama has made and the Hillary supporter ate it up. It was just dead air time and looked aweful.

So, if need be, print this out and take it with you all the time should anyone corner you with the same question:

Barack has held elected office for twelve years.
During the first eight years, sponsored over 820 bills, including 233 regarding healthcare reform, 125 on poverty and public assistance, 112 crime fighting bills, 97 economic bills, 60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills, 21 ethics reform bills, fifteen gun control bills, six bills regarding veterans’ affairs, and many others.
In his first year in the U.S. Senate, Barack authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These bills
included:
1. The Government Transparency Act (became law)
2. The Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act (became law)
3. The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (passed the Senate)
4. The Government Ethics Bill (became law)
5. The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill (now in committee), and many more.
http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/barack-obama-101/

Today, the Hillary Clinton campaign pounced with their own statement:

Hillary Clinton on the “The Choice”

To watch a video, click here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=un5RK8GhdPg

The following is an excerpt from remarks delivered by Hillary Clinton this morning in New York, NY:

“This is becoming more apparent every day. My good friend Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones from Ohio represented me on one of the TV programs in the last day or two— some of you may have seen her. And she was on against someone representing my opponent and for the first time, actually, the host, asked the representative of my opponent to name one accomplishment.

“That is all we’re asking. We’re asking to compare our records. We’re asking to compare our years of service. We’re asking to compare our ideas, our solutions.

“Because it’s not just about my opponent and myself, this election is about you. It’s about what you can expect, what your dreams will be, what your futures hold. Right now too many people are struggling, working the day shift and the night shift, trying to get by without health insurance, just one paycheck away from actually losing their homes. They cannot afford four more years of a president who just doesn’t see or hear them. They need a president ready on Day One to be the Commander in Chief of the United States military.”

Ouch. Austin Sen. Kirk Watson just got ambushed by MSNBC’s Chris Matthews. It was not pretty. Made me think Matthews is off his meds.

Watson was there to extol Barack Obama who he has endorsed. It should have been easy work since Obama romped in Wisconsin tonight.

“What’s the unique selling point of Barack Obama to Texans?,” Matthews asked.

Watson responded with hope, excitement, building coalitions, etc.

Matthews set Watson up: “You are a big Barack supporter aren’t you senator?”

“Yes, I am,” replied the pride of Austin.

“Name some of his legislative accomplishments,” Matthews asked.

Watson demurred.

“Sir, you have to give me his legislative accomplishments,” Matthews pressed. “You support him for president. You are on national television. Name his legislative accomplishments, sir. Can you name anything he has accomplished, SIR?”

Watson stammered.

“List Barack Obama’s accomplishments as a senator now. NOW.” Mathews commanded.

Watson couldn’t.

Time up.

The camera returned to Matthews and Countdown’s Keith Olbermann, who clearly felt bad for Watson.

“He is here to defend Barack Obama and he had nothing to say. That’s a problem,” Matthews said, justifying his inquisition. “Why do you think they call it Hardball?”

“But this isn’t Hardball. We are doing the election results,” Olbermann replied.

Today’s special meeting of the House Elections Committee has been a real walk down memory lane for this old Lege intern, from the rehashed debates about rampant voter fraud, to the slippery steps at the Capitol in the rain. But one line this afternoon took me right back to a few magical days in May 2007, when anything seemed possible if you had a gavel in your hand. The hush in the room was familiar too, when Chairman Leo Berman cut off a colleague to say, “Representative, I’m not going to recognize you. You argued with the chair… you’re not recognized.”

Rep. Marc Veasey, who isn’t on the Elections Committee, was the target of Berman’s best Tom Craddick routine. Veasey had permission to sit in on the meeting as a matter of courtesy, but when the questions for Republican Party of Texas Chairman Tina Benkiser got too tough, Berman’s generosity was spent.

While Veasey got the hint and left, Democratic Rep. Lon Burnam took the opportunity to complain about how Berman has run the Elections Committee, before grilling Benkiser some more for her efforts to drum up voters’ fears about election fraud. “Don’t answer that question, Ms. Benkiser,” Berman said at one point. “Ms. Benkiser is not on trial here.”

“I experienced your controlled information flow all through the last session,” Burnam jumped in. “It’s one thing for you to deny a colleague [the right] to ask a question. It’s another thing for you to instruct a witness not to answer.”

The hot tempers from the end of the last legislative session were just below the surface through most of today’s hearing, and it only took eight hours to draw them out. Benkiser finished her testimony with an emotional plea: “At the end of the day, whether you want to believe it or not, there is rampant voter fraud. I do get passionate about this issue, and I should, and every voter should.”

A few emotional exchanges have sprung up today as committee members try to keep witnesses from scoring too many points for the other side. As the meeting winds down now, the argument has cooled back off. Plenty of voter fraud cases have been aired most apparently having little to do with a photo ID requirement. The argument is more of the same, and even Rep. Rafael Anchia has grown tired of asking witnesses to see their photo ID or birth certificate.

Rep. Leo Berman has warmed to the suggestion of a voter ID bill with an option for signature verification instead of a photo ID, but otherwise it looks like next session, voter ID will be more of the same — only the outcome remains the big question.

Mary Finch from the League of Women Voters just made an emotional appeal to match Benkiser’s, saying what she’s ashamed of is Texas’ low voter turnout. “Every day we get a little smarter about this, but we still have not seen enough evidence that it’s such a serious problem that we need to restrict the franchise.”

To which Berman quoted a Washington Times poll saying two-thirds of people support a photo ID at the polls, driving home his point by saying, “And they’re not a bastion of conservatism, I can tell you.”

Polls consistently show that nearly half of Americans question the theory behind human evolution. This despite wide acceptance in the scientific community and an extensive fossil record.

Why the disconnect? It may be because of dodgy reporting like this story over the weekend in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Reporters Katherine Cromer Brock and Mark Agee wrote a pair of articles about efforts by creationists on the State of Board of Education to, um, monkey with how Texas schools teach evolution. Some board members want science teachers to discuss the so-called weaknesses of evolution. This is an old ploy.

But Brock and Agee play along, writing of a “scientific debate” where none exists. Adhering to strict “he said, she said” style, they treat creationism and evolution as scientific equals.

For instance, under the subhead “The Theories,” they write, “In 1859, Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species ignited the debate about how life on Earth came to be. Here are the prevailing theories.” They then provide brief descriptions of evolution, creation science, and intelligent design.

Actually, there is one “prevailing theory” in the scientific community. The theory of adaptation and natural selection is a central tenet of natural science.

Later the reporters quote education board member Gail Lowe complaining about how science textbooks treat evolution. “They present evolution in the same terms as gravity,” she told the paper. “We can be honest that there are some weaknesses and that Darwinian evolution is still controversial in the science community.”

Brock and Agee let that remark go uncorrected. We’ll do it for them.

Darwinian evolution is by no means controversial in the science community. Nearly every serious natural scientist in the world subscribes to the theory of natural selection. A handful of rogue scholars have promoted intelligent design, but even they have conceded that natural selection took over after creation by an “intelligent designer.” And there aren’t weaknesses in the theory of evolution. There are things we don’t know yet, gaps in the fossil record, and mysteries we haven’t solved about our ancient origins. But the theory itself is accepted as fact. And yes, Ms. Lowe, it’s much like the theory of gravity.

Brock and Agee’s story leaves the impression that there is legitimate scientific debate about the veracity of human evolution. That simply isn’t true. To imply otherwise is dishonest journalism.