Capitol Letters

If you look at the campaign that’s being run against Pete Gallego, it’s your basic, standard tea party deal: ‘The government would mess up a two-car parade, and God is on my side.’—President Bill Clinton, October 25, 2012

Three Times They Said NO TO GOD.—Campaign mailer from Congressman Francisco “Quico” Canseco on Pete Gallego and the national Democratic party

Last Thursday Bill Clinton turned on that old Clinton charm, which seems to work on everyone but his wife, to lend his support to Democratic state Rep. Pete Gallego in his congressional race. The 23rd Congressional District is roughly two-thirds Hispanic and stretches from San Antonio to El Paso. Despite the best efforts of Republicans to redistrict minority Democrats right out of Texas—most notably Hispanic voters—incumbent congressman Francisco “Quico” Canseco has been targeted by Democrats since 2010 when he narrowly beat Ciro Rodriguez.

The key issues in the campaign—Obamacare, the economy, energy, immigration and the DREAM Act, and that meddling EPA—have been rather predictable, given that this is a race between a tea party candidate and a fairly moderate Democrat. But some things you just can’t predict. Like, say, Jesus Christ taking time out of his busy schedule to endorse the incumbent.

It must have been a tough call since both candidates happen to be Catholic. But guided by his distorted version of faith Canseco decided to accuse his opponent of being a lapsed Catholic who embraces, if not encourages, abortions for young girls. A direct mail piece from Canseco’s campaign accused Gallego of “wanting to provide abortions for underage girls” (Gallego has voted for legislation requiring parental consent) and “wanting marriage to be between man and man” (Gallego supports civil unions but not same-sex marriage). The controversial mailer even featured an image of Jesus Christ, not that those heathen Democrats would recognize him. Canseco’s campaign manager Scott Yeldell went on to accuse Gallego of “acting like he stands up for the faith he abandoned years ago.” Seriously. Can we get some confirmation on Gallego’s Sunday mass attendance record and tithing? (As a fellow Catholic I’m more than familiar with the church’s teachings and its lack of patience for wayward parishioners.)

As a self-described devout Catholic we can only assume Canseco takes his moral cues from the Ten Commandments when he’s not consulting his stigmata. The second commandment forbids taking the name of the Lord your God in vain. Which probably doesn’t allow for slapping Jesus Christ on your hate mail. The mailer also breaks the eighth commandment, bearing false witness against your neighbor. I’ll give Canseco the benefit of the doubt and say he keeps amendments four through six. I can’t speak to the remaining five.

Responding to the mailers and Canseco’s many allegations, Gallego released a statement saying, “I have never seen a campaign use what to many of us is a beloved and holy image in such a crass and disrespectful manner.” But then this entire campaign season has been nothing if not crass and disrespectful. Gallego should take comfort in the fact that two members of the Holy Trinity are still undecided.

Could questioning someone’s Catholic cred really be an effective campaign tactic in a predominantly Hispanic district? Probably not. According to a new study on the Catholic vote conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, Hispanic Catholics and other Catholic minorities have consistently voted Democratic. In the 2008 election 72 percent of Hispanic Catholics voted for President Obama. Attacking your Democratic challenger’s Catholic faith seems like a long shot and maybe even an act of desperation. On social issues the study also found that Hispanic Catholics express more support than opposition to same-sex marriage while they are evenly split regarding abortion. They also prefer big government and more government services, which could help Gallego considering that Canseco doesn’t even try to mask his disdain for the government, even while he serves in it.

Unless Gallego is caught covertly worshipping in a Methodist church in the next week, this race will remain a toss-up. Not surprisingly the most recent polls, one conducted by the League of Conservation Voters on behalf of the Gallego campaign and one conducted internally by the Canseco campaign, have come up with wildly different results.  Depending on which one you believe, Gallego is either up by five points or Canseco is up by 10 points. We’ll know soon enough who the Catholic swing voters decided to support.

God willing.

Photo source: facebook.com/tedcruzpage

Ted Cruz is where he is today—the next senator from Texas, barring any unforeseen circumstances such as being eaten alive by angry trolls—because of the tea party faithful. The true believers propelled Cruz to an unlikely victory over Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, who had the backing of the Republican establishment including one-time tea party favorite Gov. Rick Perry. With his uber-conservative positions on issues from health care (bad) to gun rights (good), coupled with his outsider cred, Cruz quickly became a renegade hero to the right. He owes them, big time.

So why does it seem like he’s tiptoeing away from them?

More extreme candidates like Cruz tend to morph into typical politicians once they get elected (see: Florida Sen. Marco Rubio) unless they’re complete whack jobs (see: South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint). Despite his hardline views and fiery rhetoric, Cruz is not just another whack job—he’s a highly intelligent whack job. And a rising star’s political future is much more critical than answering to the outlandish needs and wants of a fringe group like the Tea Party Express. Cruz may be more beholden to the interests of his big financial backers, Club for Growth and FreedomWorks, which successfully convinced primary voters that Dewhurst was a socialism-loving moderate.

But now that same moderate has hit the campaign trail for Cruz, his former foe, along with Perry. Of course, Perry was perfectly willing to switch his allegiance immediately following Dewhurst’s loss. In a statement he called Cruz “a force to be reckoned with: an excellent candidate and a great conservative communicator.” Both Sen. John Cornyn and retiring Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison have been prominently featured at wealthy fundraisers for Cruz, presumably too rich for tea party blood. The heady days of Sarah Palin and Sean Hannity have given way to more low-key appearances.

Not that Cruz has given any indication that he would soften his positions, such as his harsh immigration stance and firm opposition to the DREAM Act (unless it applies to Canadians). Cruz will no doubt remain a conservative’s conservative, especially given that his party is increasingly lurching to the right. Not surprisingly, the National Right to Life Committee and the Texas Alliance for Life endorsed him this week for his anti-abortion credentials, including his defense of parental consent laws in front of the Supreme Court. Cruz has also received endorsements from more centrist groups such as the Texas Association of Business and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

In an interview with conservative media outlet NewsMax, Cruz blamed Republicans in Congress for the national debt and said that there is a “second wave of new Republican leaders” coming to Washington who will make the “hard choices.” One can only assume Cruz considers himself one of those “new Republican leaders.” He added that he would, however, be willing to work with other senators.

Sure, he’ll throw a bone to his loyal base every now and again, like his recent tweet about the administration’s “assault on Constitution, 1st Amendment & religious liberty” and a few winking asides on state sovereignty and government-dependent hooligans. But just because you helped get a guy elected, doesn’t mean he’ll end up helping you.

PHOTO BY FORREST WILDER

Satan runs across the world with his doubt and with his untruths and what have you, and one of the untruths out there that is driven is that people of faith should not be involved in the public arena.—Rick Perry, September 19, 2012

You had to know that our long national nightmare wasn’t over quite yet. To the untrained eye, when Rick Perry dropped out of the race last January, he appeared to be damaged goods. The governor had run such a lousy and inexperienced campaign that he made Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain look positively presidential. So when Perry declared in August that he would “absolutely” consider another run, Texas pundits awoke from their self-induced slumber and began feverishly working on their Perry-in-2016 stories which, if Mitt Romney wins the presidency, will have to be repackaged into Perry-in-2020 stories. For whatever reason, journalists have created a carefully crafted myth around our governor that if the man could just form coherent sentences and take a refresher course on the American Revolution, he could win.

In order to run in 2016, however, Perry first has to win another term as governor so that he can run on his “record,” such as it is. A Texas Lyceum poll released last week found that only 29 percent of likely Republican primary voters said they would vote for him, despite the fact that he currently enjoys a 56 percent approval rating. Two-thirds of likely Republican primary voters said they would first want to see who else is running. Like, anyone else.

Let’s assume for the moment that the man who Perry derided as a “Vulture Capitalist” (a Mormon, no less!) loses in November and Perry, buoyed by his loyal team of advisers and his personal yet extremely public relationship with Jesus Christ, decides to give it another go. Why would this time be any different? As I wrote in The Atlantic after Perry reluctantly “suspended” his campaign, it turned out that the problem was never about underestimating our good governor. It was overestimating him. Not even the tea party could save him, if they had wanted to. But perhaps there was a valid—even compelling—reason. According to a revealing new book by the Texas Tribune’s Jay Root, Oops! A Diary From the 2012 Campaign Trail, Perry advisers claimed that the reason their candidate performed so poorly is because he suffered from undiagnosed sleep apnea. (Perry later explained that it “probably wasn’t a good diagnosis.” In other words, he really was just that bad.)

That said, Perry’s presidential campaign always looked and felt more like an evangelical prayer rally on steroids than a serious bid for the White House. Remember “The Response?” The declarations for days of prayer and fasting? His infamous ad decrying President Obama’s “war on religion” and support for gay members in the military? Despite the dubious outcome of running on his conservative religious credentials last time, there’s absolutely no sign that Perry would do it any different the next time around, if there is one. Speaking to Christian conservatives last month Perry declared that the separation of church and state is “the devil’s work” and spoke of the dire need to rally “Christian warriors and Christian soldiers.”

During the campaign Perry told CNN’s Anderson Cooper that he can “no more remove my faith than I can that I’m the son of a tenant farmer.” Without his religious fervor, what exactly does Perry have to offer, aside from his unwavering beliefs that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, evolution is just a theory, secession is good, socialism is bad and debates should never, ever be televised?

For Perry to be taken seriously as a candidate in 2016, he would have to spend the next four years generating actual ideas and policies—or else figure out how to make his empty rhetoric seem more convincing, which would save a lot of time and effort. How could he possibly do that serving an unprecedented fourth term as governor in a state that values religious conservatism above all else? Rick Perry may very well be suited up for another war on religion but whether or not the Christian warriors—those same evangelicals who ended up backing Rick Santorum—will follow him into battle is another matter entirely.

PHOTO SOURCES: FACEBOOK.COM/PAUL.SADLER.311 & FACEBOOK.COM/TEDCRUZPAGE

Paul Sadler (left) and Ted Cruz

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.

PHOTO SOURCE FACEBOOK.COM/DRMARKSHELTON

Rep. Mark Shelton

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.

PHOTO SOURCE: DEMCONVENTION.COM

Cecile Richards at the Democratic National Convention

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.