Blogs

With the filing deadline having passed quietly on Tuesday—quietly, that is, unless you’re the sickest kind of political addict—there’s cheerful news for Texas Democrats as they look to the 2010 statewide elections. Which is a strange thing to find myself typing, given their grim track record over the last couple of decades. Strange—but true. And surprising in equal measure.

The dominant Republicans, of course, have long known what to expect on their side: A potentially divisive battle at the top of the ticket between Sen. Kay Bailey “Will I, Won’t I?” Hutchison and Gov. Rick “States’ Rights” Perry. Otherwise, precious little drama in their statewide primaries—and only token opposition in the statewide races where they’ve batted 1,000 since 1998. Just two months ago, Democrats hadn’t the slightest clue about what to expect—aside from yet another year of near-certain futility. After all but one of the state’s potentially viable Dems had wussed out of the governor’s race, the party’s likeliest ticket-topper was Fort Worth businessman and George W. Bush pal Tom Schieffer, who could have raised more money and garnered more enthusiasm in his 10-month exploratory campaign by stationing himself at a busy intersection with a cardboard sign reading: “I’m a Democrat—really! Please help!” Nobody of note was stepping up to challenge Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst. And it was the same on down the line, statewide race after statewide race: It looked for all the world like the GOP was going to sail to another sweep, getting to focus its money and energies on salvaging its slim majority in the state House. But lo, unto the Dems a savior appeared: wildly popular Houston Mayor Bill White, who switched from gunning for Hutchison’s fictionally available Senate seat and gave his party a reason for optimism that’s anything but fictional. And over the next six weeks, the Democratic blanks began to be filled in down the ballot (with the one inexplicable exception of the race for the powerful Comptroller’s office, where party officials couldn’t find a single soul willing to challenge the less-than-invincible incumbent, Susan Combs). Maybe the best news for Texas Dems—aside from White’s blessed reversal—is that they’ll actually have party primaries that might create a few fireworks and stir some interest without tearing the party apart. The party’s top statewide vote-getter from 2006, East Texas rancher Hank Gilbert, will face off against Kinky Friedman, who dropped his inexplicable run for governor to try for (Inexplicable Part II) Agriculture Commissioner. The winner could have an outside shot at knocking off the Republican functionary now running Ag, Todd Staples. The Lite Gov primary will offer less sideshow entertainment than Gilbert vs. Friedman. But for Democrats—and potentially, for any Texan interested in good and honest government—it offers far more consequential stakes. Former Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle, a white-hatted hero to many progressives for prosecuting Tom Delay, Sen. Hutchison and even himself, threw his hat in the ring. And then Linda Chavez- Thompson—sharecropper’s daughter, national labor leader and vice chair of the Democratic National Committee—followed suit, potentially giving Democrats a boost in Latino turnout. (See her announcement here.) (A momentary digression into obligatory fairness: Austin deli mogul Marc Katz is also running for the Dems’ Lite Gov nomination and swearing he’ll spend gobs of cash. Ditto Houston hair-care mogul Farouk Shami, who’s running against White for the gubernatorial nod. Nobody but Katz and Shami quite knows why.) Compared with what the Dems very recently had every right to expect—no, fear—it’s almost too good to be believed. Not since the ill-named “Dream Team” (John Sharp for Senate, Tony Sanchez for governor, Ron Kirk for lieutenant governor) raised—and then dashed—Democratic hopes in 2002 has the party faithful enjoyed such a season of hope. [CORRECTION: As commenters helpfully pointed out, Sharp was the lieutenant governor candidate in 2002, while Kirk ran for Senate.] How hopeful do things look? Look no further than this: Even The Dallas Morning News has been moved to recognize the outside chance that White, at least, could break the GOP’s long winning streak. In part, the relative strength of the Democrats’ statewide ticket for 2010 is a reflection of the undeniable fact that the GOP’s hold on Texas is slowly eroding. The eye-popping turnout for the 2008 Obama-Clinton shindig was just one sign of that. The Democrats’ near-miss in retaking the state House later that year was another. The Dems now rule Dallas, dominate Houston, and continue to reap the benefits of the Republicans’ tone-deaf immigrant-bashing in winning the loyalties of Latinos. Harvey Kronberg, editor and publisher of Quorum Report, says that the GOP’s demographic “structural advantage” has already shrunk from its apex of 1.5 million statewide to about a half-million—an edge that White, especially, is well-situated to overcome with his strong base in Harris County and its environs. In that vast metro stretch with about one-third of the state’s total votes, Gov. Perry’s been unusually popular, Kronberg notes. He would normally expect to roll up a huge and probably decisive margin there—against any Democrat but White. Another of the state’s most astute political observers, SMU’s Cal Jillson, is quick to note—accurately enough—that it remains true until proven otherwise that “you could lose a lot of money betting on Texas Democrats.” Anybody foolish enough to bet on the Dream Team debacle of 2002 certainly lost a mint. Aside from the Republicans’ persistent—though waning—edge in voter loyalty, the Democrats’ biggest enemy in 2010 could be their own, perfectly understandable, lack of faith. How many times can you work up your hopes, have them mercilessly crushed, and keep coming back for more? “In the last half-dozen cycles, Texas Democrats were so beaten down that they sort of went to ground,” Jillson says. “They didn’t have really good candidates, didn’t put money behind them, so you got late into each race and Democrats would see their candidates a dozen points behind. They’ve never really had the horses to bet on. In this race, they do have that in Bill White.” Will they make the bet? Democrats were turning cartwheels when White announced, and they’re still dizzy with unfamiliar excitement. But the test, Jillson says, is “whether they will see White and others on the ticket and get behind them. Will they put some money in, so national Democrats can see that commitment and add to the pot?” And will they have the juice in their ground game to counter the Republicans’ organizational edge in voter turnout? “If that happens,” Jillson says, “we could have an interesting race.” By God, we could.

The other day I received a comment to my last blog “What Will Become of Mexico in 2010?” The commenter lives in Central Mexico and took me to task saying my piece was “full of inaccuracies and ridiculous exaggerations” and was “sloppy, shameful work.”

Since I am often critical of sensationalistic news stories about violence in Mexico and on the U.S.-Mexico border I wanted to respond to my commenter called (gtodon). But when my response turned into several paragraphs I thought I better turn it into a blog instead. So here goes.

What so incensed my commenter among other things were my following statements:

“Friends and family in Mexico used to take solace in the view that the kidnappings and killings were isolated events that only happened to those involved in the drug trade.

That old view is disappearing. It’s being replaced by fear and a nagging insecurity. These days being in the wrong place at the wrong time can get you killed. The Mexican Army shoots with impunity and cartels exact their revenge in the streets. Innocent bystanders, many of them children, are routinely killed.”

The commenter said these statements were “absolute nonsense, and unsupported by any statistics.“  I admit I didn’t use any statistics and the paragraph is quite dramatic. It’s because I wrote it in a fit of frustration and utter despair over Calderon’s handling of the drug cartel situation, which is rapidly getting worse with no end in sight.

I wish my statements in my previous blog were ridiculous exaggerations…but unfortunately they are not. I will now back them up with more links to prove my point.

The commenter lives in Central Mexico. These killings are getting worse along the border and northern Mexico: Durango, Chihuahua, Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon, Coahuila and Baja California for example. Sinaloa, Guerrero and Michoacan are enduring terrible violence also. The Mexican newspaper El Universal does a great job of covering the mess. They called 2009 the worst so far in terms of violence. Here is an info graphic they did of the killings state by state.

True, I don’t have any statistics for the number of children that have been killed in the crossfire. However, here’s a link from the El Paso Times, which has covered the violence in Juarez since it erupted. Just a scan of the headlines, and I count at least 10 children. One child is too many. Here is another article where three students were killed in Sinaloa.

What I have noticed from my daily reading of news clips from Mexico and the U.S. border is that the increasing militarization of the Mexican side of the border is leading to an increase in deaths of innocent people caught in the crossfire. The Mexican military is indiscriminately opening fire in public places in their pursuit of drug cartel members. Increasingly innocent children and bystanders are being killed. What exactly, does Felipe Calderon hope to gain from this? It’s time he explained what the endgame is to the Mexican people. How many more innocent people are going to die while the government and the cartels shoot it out in the streets? Does he really think the billion-dollar drug market is going to go away?

I’ll refer you to a recent case of a woman from Brownsville who was killed by a random bullet while sitting in her friend’s living room in Matamoros. The bullet came from a soldier’s rifle. The army was conducting a drug raid in a nearby apartment. Here is another link to a recent gun battle outside of Monterrey where you will see the army shoot a police officer down in the street in a residential neighborhood.

The drug cartel leaders need to be defeated no question. But has the Mexican government considered all of their options in crippling these cartels? What about wiping out their bank accounts so they no longer have the cash to corrupt the police and government officials? Consider this new book out in Mexico called El Narco: La Guerra Fallida, (Narco: the Failed War) which the LA Times mentioned in an article the other day.

The book written by the former spokesman for Vicente Fox Ruben Aguilar and former Foreign Minister Jorge Castañeda is one of the first books to take an in depth look and criticize Calderon’s 3-year war on the drug cartels. According to the Times “it proposes some public-safety measures, including the creation of a national police force and a no-fly zone over southern Mexico. Rather than send troops to fight drug cartels, they argue, Mexico should focus on limiting the “collateral damage” that most aggrieves Mexicans: kidnappings, extortion, car theft and corruption.”

Not like the Fox Administration ever did anything to stop the cartels either, right? Still, I think it’s time to take a realistic and in depth look at this madness. Both the U.S. and Mexican governments need to do something radically different unless they want to see Mexico suffer even worse economic and security crises. In the U.S. we need to give up the ridiculous War on Drugs and start dealing with reality, which I touched on in my previous blog.

The commenter also wrote: “Many educated Mexicans who have the means to leave are choosing exile.” Some have left, true. But “many”? How about some hard numbers?

Mexicans with money and visas are leaving Mexico. Maybe I should say “some” instead of “many”?

I don’t know if there is any way to quantify how many. But I can say I know of two Mexican families personally right now looking for homes here in the United States because of the growing threat of violence and kidnappings. Not long ago, Alejandro Junco, the owner of the influential Grupo Reforma newspaper chain made headlines when he moved to Austin for his family’s safety.

How many more grenades, how many more kidnappings, how many more deaths will it take before the U.S. and Mexican governments change their tactics and their outmoded drug policies ? If they don’t I predict 2010 will set a new record for violence in Mexico. I really hope I can look back in 2011 and say this last statement was a “ridiculous exaggeration.”

Paranoia Runs Deep

The EPA is set to announce tomorrow that the national ozone standard will be lowered from 75 ppb to 70 ppb. That means Austin, San Antonio and probably other areas will join Houston, DFW, and Beaumont-Port Arthur in non-attainment.

Clean air advocates are wondering how in the hell Texas is going to meet the tougher smog standard (and other pollution-cutting mandates) given the state’s unwillingness to meet the current limit. Unfortunately, the conservative reaction to the new science-based ruling has been, well, reactionary.

Here’s what Kathleen Hartnett White, the gum-smacking former chairwoman of the TCEQ, told the Dallas Morning-News:

For decades, national environmental activism has crashed into Texas’ go-slow policies. Now the Obama administration wants much more action from Texas on clean air.

To some, it’s an unprecedented and unfair use of federal muscle.

“It’s just an approach that is – I’m sorry to use the word, but hostile,” said Kathleen Hartnett White. She’s a former chairwoman of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality under Gov. Rick Perry.

“This is far bolder than anyone can remember on any issue at any time,” said White, now a fellow at the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation, an Austin think tank.

White said she suspects that predominantly Republican Texas might be a White House target. “Call it paranoia if you’d like to – Texas paranoia,” she said.

Yes, it’s all part of a vast left-wing conspiracy to make the air cleaner.

 

Dept. of Corrections

This week’s top correction is actually from two week’s ago, but it was too entertaining to pass up.

From Gawker:

Earlier this week, we called congressman Jason Chaffetz a self-hating weirdo, an asshole, a probable closet case, and the son of Kitty Dukakis. He is not the son of Kitty Dukakis. We regret the error.

The correction carries the headline, “Whoops! Complete Prick Isn’t Related to Nice Lady.” Here’s the original story, which, just for good measure, also refers to Chaffetz as a “self-hating Mormon Jew.”

I don’t know what to make of all that, except that Gawker — love em or hate em — at least gets an ‘A’ for Chutzpah.