Evidently, John Cornyn’s image among the Teabagging set isn’t what it used to be:

U.S. Sen. John Cornyn drew boos from a crowd outside the Texas Capitol this afternoon as he spoke at a “tea party” rally organized by the Texas office of Americans for Prosperity.

Cornyn was booed at the start and close of his remarks, which assailed actions in Washington; there were no boos while he awarded a Purple Heart to a Copperas Cove resident injured in Iraq in 2006.

“You’re the problem,” a crowd member hollered.

Another crowd member yelled that Cornyn voted for the initial federal bailout of Wall Street approved by Congress last year, the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

There is even video of Cornyn being booed:

A eulogy delivered by Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Houston) at a memorial service for pop icon Michael Jackson in Los Angeles a few hours ago is already causing a storm to swirl around the longtime Texas Democrat, herself no stranger to controversy.

Via Politico:

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee eulogized Michael Jackson at the Staples Center in Los Angeles Tuesday, paying her respects to the fallen pop star and defending him against charges of child molestation.

“We understand the Constitution, we understand laws, and we know that people are innocent until proven otherwise,” the Texas Democrat told mourners gathered for Jackson’s memorial service. “That is what the Constitution stands for.”

The congresswoman, who has introduced a resolution to honor Jackson as “an accomplished contributor to the worlds of arts and entertainment, scientific advances in the treatment of HIV/AIDS, and global food security,” spoke about how Jackson helped bring Americans into public service.

“Many people don’t understand the hearts of entertainers,” she said. “They don’t know how big their hearts are. They don’t know how they heal the world on behalf of America.”

Jackson Lee went on to recall Jackson’s visit to Washington in 2004, to rally awareness for the fight against HIV/AIDs, as well as a meeting she had in her office with him and 15 African ambassadors.

Video here:

Conservatives like Michelle Malkin have already gone nuts over Jackson Lee’s remarks:

Oh, no, she didn’t.

Oh, yes, she did.

Democrat Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee just pimped the stupidest House resolution ever on stage at the Jacko memorial at Staples Center. She held up a big, framed copy of it as the crowd cheered. That was after she extolled “The King,” painted him as the world’s greatest humanitarian, and demagogued the child molestation cases by proclaiming that members of Congress “know the law” and know that he is “INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY!”

Yes, she did. Right there in front of Jacko’s three children.

I thought Al Sharpton’s memorial rant was the low point for American culture.

Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, you win.

The National Republican Congressional Committee also took advantage of the opportunity to point out that Jackson Lee was missing an “important vote” in Congress today to be at the memorial:

While Jackson-Lee is pre-occupied speaking at Michael Jackson’s celeb-studded memorial in Los Angeles, and promoting her bill honoring Jackson, she is neglecting this very real vote taking place back here in Washington:

H.Con.Res. 135 – Directing the Architect of the Capitol to place a marker in Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center which acknowledges the role that slave labor played in the construction of the United States Capitol (Sponsored by Rep. Lewis (GA) / House Administration Committee

Will this cause Jackson Lee any real harm? Probably not. A Republican could never win her district, and Jackson Lee herself is a Teflon woman in her district. It is doubtful much of this will matter, but political foes will nonetheless make hay with this bit of interesting political theater.

Taking a look at the list of vetoes issued last week by Texas Governor Rick Perry’s office, it isn’t hard to see the direction he is trying to take his 2010 campaign. Perry skillfully used his veto pen to cozy up to his Republican base.

He vetoed bills he can claim make him look tough on crime (even teenage nookie). He vetoed bills that he can claim make him look like a champion sensible tax reform, and even vetoed bills that show him to be anti-gambling.

That vast majority of Perry’s vetoes make no sense except when taken in the context of his looming 2010 GOP primary battle with U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. Most of what he vetoed passed both legislative chambers by decent margins and was fairly non-controversial stuff.

Taking a look back through all of those vetoes, there are several that stand out as being tailor-made to be highlighted in any opponent’s opposition research dossier. These vetoes could come back to haunt Perry in a significant way.

House Bill 1293. On the surface, it looks like another boring insurance bill. However, for a potential opponent, it is gold. In one veto, Perry showed he was anti-consumer and, worse, okay with letting the elderly get screwed by big business. The nuts and bolts of this bill may not seem like that is the case, but check this from the bill analysis:

The National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) has worked for a number of years to develop model laws to prevent unfair and deceptive sales practices in the sale of annuities.  In 2007, Texas passed the NAIC model annuity suitability act which requires agents to determine the suitability of a particular annuity for the individual consumer before it is sold.  This model act is now codified in Chapter 1115 (Suitability of Certain Annuity Transactions), Insurance Code.

In addition to the model standards for suitability, the NAIC developed a model regulation to provide standards for the disclosure of certain critical information to consumers, such as the benefits and limitations of annuity contracts, to protect consumers and foster consumer education. Adopting the model regulation by statute will permit the Texas Department of Insurance to adopt the Buyer’s Guide and Disclosure document by rule and permit changes as those are changed. [Emphasis added]

Annuities are typically used as vehicles to add income to a person’s retirement, hence AARP’s testimony in favor of the bill.

Perry vetoed the bill to give insurance companies (some of his best contributors) cover from lawsuits:

This legislation designates any violation of these standards as an unfair or deceptive act or practice, which would expose agents and insurers to private claims for damages, attorney fees and costs for any such violation. Because the Texas Insurance Code already addresses suitable remedies for such offenses, I am opposed to this bill, which creates greater opportunities for frivolous litigation throughout the state.

The bill analysis may sound innocuous and the reality may very well be that the veto isn’t a complete sky-is-falling disaster for consumers, but to the skilled opposition researcher or campaign staffer, this veto is gold–notwithstanding the fact that Perry actually ordered the Texas Department of Insurance to implement some of the “beneficial” aspects of the bill.

Given that the mainstream media is often slow on the uptake when it comes to dissecting attack nuggets (especially since something as specific as a veto like this can be painted with very broad strokes and it can be hard to figure out what bill, exactly, an ad references), Perry could find himself quickly on the defensive and trying to explain away this veto.

Consider how an opponent might frame this veto to attack Perry:

Rick Perry took thousands of dollars from insurance companies and then used his veto pen to strip away protections to prevent Texas consumers from being taken advantage of by big insurance and financial services companies.

Or this:

Planning for retirement is tough, especially in this economy. And Rick Perry won’t make it any easier for working Texans. Rick Perry vetoed a bill that would set standards for educating consumers about investment options, making it easier for big business to take advantage of Texans. Rick Perry: big business’ best friend in Austin.

The list could go on. Are these examples a trite deceptive? Maybe. Are they factual? Yes. Would any opponent who wants to bust Perry’s electoral kneecaps use this to agitate senior citizens? They’d be stupid not to.

HB 2142. This veto could literally be the among the dumbest of Perry’s entire administration. The bill prevented the Texas Department of Transportation from engaging in marketing campaigns to promote tolls as a mechanism for funding highway construction. In case Perry hasn’t noticed, the vast majority of the state is against toll roads. Check out Perry’s reasoning for the veto:

House Bill No. 2142 limits the Texas Department of Transportation’s ability to market or advertise the use of toll roads or tolling as a method of paying for highway projects, preventing the state from advertising resources such as toll tags. [Emphasis added]

Say WHAT? This bill will prevent the state from advertising toll tags? That’s just a fabrication. Read the bill. Read the bill analysis:

Provides that this section does not authorize TxDOT to engage in marketing, advertising, or other activities for the purpose of influencing public opinion about the use of toll roads or the use of tolls as a financial mechanism.

Where did Perry and his staff come up with being able to claim that this bill would stop the state from advertising toll tags? The bill was very strictly constructed to stop TxDOT from engaging in multi-million dollar ad campaigns to con Texans into believing that the only way for us to have roads is through tolls. Not in the wildest Wonderland of Legislative Intent Dreamscapes can it be construed that this bill would stop TxDOT from promoting toll tags. That is just a scapegoat excuse to veto a bill that passed the House 132-1 and the Senate 31 to zip. (This is probably what happens when you veto bills on salvia.)

HB 130. This one–full-day pre-kindergarten funding–is another opposition researcher’s dream. Imagine video of Rick Perry delivering his 2005 State of the State Address, and this line being delivered:

When our work is done, parents won’t measure our success by how much money we spend, but whether more children learn.

Then imagine pictures of low-income, four-year old kids playing on an abandoned lot somewhere, and the following voiceover:

“How much are our children learning, Governor Perry? You vetoed a bill that would have opened schoolhouse doors to thousands of Texas children, giving them a head start on succeeding in school. Texas has one of the highest high school drop-out rates in the nation, and spends less money per student than almost any other state in the nation. Yet you shut kids out of schools. If you think this is how you measure success, maybe you need to get a new ruler, Governor Perry.”

Again, it passes the truth test just enough to allow Perry to be stabbed in the gut by his own veto pen. The bonus is that you can attack Perry for the veto without actually mentioning the word “pre-kindergarten,” which is an anathema to anti-welfare types who think it is a handout to the poor.

These are only three of Perry’s vetoes from this session–and the first one is probably one most folks wouldn’t consider as something he could be easily attacked with. But, one can clearly see that at the bottom of most of his vetoes is some nugget of gold for opponents.

State Sen. Leticia Van De Putte (D-San Antonio) today ended months of speculation concerning whether or not she will run for Texas governor by saying she won’t do so, and instead will work to draft fellow state senator Kirk Watson (D-Austin) into the race.

Prominent Democrats must put personal ambitions aside and very
pragmatically nominate the person best equipped to win in November.
Just because one can win the Democratic nomination for Governor doesn’t
mean one should, unless he or she is best positioned to defeat the
Republican nominee in the fall. That’s why I think Senator Kirk Watson
should raise his sights and run for Governor. I’ve watched as Senator
Watson has emerged as a leader in the state Senate on the issues of
most importance to Texans. While staying true to Democratic values, he
is a bipartisan pragmatic leader solidly focused on addressing the
priorities of all Texans. I intend to lobby Senator Watson to run for
governor, and I’ll wholeheartedly support him if he does. But if he
declines, Democrats should recruit and support someone who, like
Watson, is energetic, pragmatic, focused, and smart; and who can fully
energize Democratic supporters while also attracting a broad range of
independent voters in every region of the state. The Republicans have
had their day, and Texans have realized that the Republicans can’t
lead. I will be working hard to elect a Democrat to the Governor’s
office.

The remainder of Van De Putte’s statement is at the end of this post.

If Watson were to enter the fray, he would have company. Tom Schieffer, brother of CBS Newsman Bob Schieffer, a Dallas businessman and former Ambassador and intimate of George W. Bush, is set to announce his plans to run tomorrow. Former Travis County DA Ronnie Earle is also reportedly considering a run for the spot.

It would also not be Watson’s first statewide race. He ran for attorney general in 2002 on the “Dream Team” ticket that went down to defeat up and down the ballot.

However, since entering the Senate, Watson has raised his statewide profile and could potentially be a viable candidate.

REMAINDER OF VAN DE PUTTE STATEMENT:

Five months of speculation regarding the possibility of me running for Governor has, quite frankly, been surprising. It started with nothing more than me not immediately saying ‘no,’ unlike in past election cycles, when asked if I would consider such a run. The reactions of thousands of Texans who encouraged me to give it serious consideration has been flattering.

“I have, indeed, given it very serious thought, and while I would love to believe, tongue firmly planted in cheek, that this pent-up desire on the part of so many Texans for me to run for governor is solely because of some perceived superior leadership ability and vast intellect of mine, I have to reluctantly admit that it’s not as much about me as it is about Republican failures.

“This is about Texas’ stunning lack of current leadership. Large and growing numbers feel betrayed by the Republicans they voted into statewide office, and who can blame them? While Texas families remain concerned about genuine priority issues, Republicans led by Rick Perry continue to instead obsess about hyper-partisan issues, in order to grab more power for themselves.

“Texans still pay the highest homeowners insurance premiums in the country. Texas still has the highest percentage in the country of those without access to health care. Texas still has the second highest rate of teen pregnancy in the nation, and the highest rate of teens with a second pregnancy. And after years of Republican ‘leadership,’ not only has Rick Perry failed to address these challenges, but he and his minions have done everything they can to avoid addressing them in any meaningful way. Rick Perry, Kay Bailey Hutchison, and others in the Republican leadership have turned their backs on 25 million Texans, instead opting to curry favor with a handful of fringe Republican primary voters.

“If I believed for a second that it would result in a healthy debate of the issues of most importance to Texas families, I would today be announcing my candidacy for Governor of Texas. But we have all watched over the years as Perry, Hutchison, and other Republican politicians have launched their scorched earth ‘say anything to win’ vicious attacks against political opponents. To mask their utter lack of leadership, they’ll do so again, and I decline to put my family through it. That I am a Latina would only serve to amplify their attacks.

“I will gladly work hard to ensure that a Democrat prevails in the election for Governor, so that Texas families can have a better shot at having a state government focused on the needs of Texans, instead of state Republican leadership obsessed with their own political futures, at Texans’ expense.

Taking a look at the declared candidates for governor on the Democratic side of the aisle in 2010, which basically amounts to 2008 Railroad Commission candidate Mark Thompson and Ambassador Tom Schieffer (with Kinky Friedman still “considering” a run), many Democrats across the state find themselves wanting….well, more.

One name that keeps cropping up in discussions about 2010 races is former Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle. He hasn’t ruled out a run, but he hasn’t decided to run, either.

Toward that end, I and a handful of online and offline activists from across the state who think that Ronnie Earle would make an excellent candidate for governor have decided to shake the tree a little bit and see what fruit may fall. We’ve established a website, DraftRonnie.com, as well as a Facebook group urging Ronnie Earle to take the plunge and enter the race for governor.

That said, it is important to provide a little background on this announcement. After the 2007 Draft Rick movement, I swore to myself that I’d never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever be involved in another movement to draft anyone to run for anything as long as I lived and blogged. Part of the reason was because online activists got a lot of flack from all sides and for a variety of reasons–mostly realted to people questioning how “genuine” our draft was, and whether or not it was orchestrated.

In this case, the draft is a surprise to everyone–including me. Talking with some like-minded folks in Austin over the weekend about Ronnie Earle and this idea, it just seemed like the right time to do this. And, for the record, I strongly expect Ronnie Earle to be as surprised as I am that there is a Draft Ronnie Earle website in Cyberspace.

The next big question folks are probably asking is, “Why Ronnie Earle?” I think that the answers are pretty obvious, but I’ll elaborate.

Ronnie Earle is a classic progressive, good-government Democrat with the capability to inspire people and, ultimately, reach across party lines and actually win in places in this state Democrats haven’t won in a while.

Last year, I contacted then-DA Earle about participating in a panel that we were assembling for Netroots Nation called “Blogs As The Ethics Watchdog.” We wanted him to participate because we thought he’d have a unique perspective on some of the issues bloggers in Texas had covered since, after all, his office investigated them. Shortly after that, I got the opportunity to hear him speak at a fundraiser in East Texas (if memory serves, I even got to introduce him, because I’d suggested him as a speaker). I couldn’t quote you chapter and verse of his speech, but it was inspiring and, through that speech, Ronnie Earle articulated (perhaps without even realizing it) a vision for Texas that is different from the kind of thing you typically hear gubernatorial candidates talk about. Given that he wasn’t a candidate for anything at that point, it was particularly impressive.

Ronnie Earle talked about a vision for a Texas that is proactive and not reactive when it comes to public policy areas like crime and education. He talked about a Texas where the interests of children and the elderly come first, and not the interests of big business or big donors. He even set forth a few ways Democrats could accomplish those things, but I won’t try to recount them today.

In July of last year, I got to hear Ronnie Earle speak again in a more casual atmosphere at the Netroots Nation panel. By that time (and even when he spoke at the spring fundraiser), he had been mentioned as a possible candidate for statewide office. As I listened to some of what he said in the Netroots Nation panel, though, and recalled the earlier speech I heard, I decided that if Ronnie Earle ever ran for statewide office, he was a candidate I would support.

Since he hasn’t made up his mind yet, and since I know a number of people who feel the same way I do, now is the time to offer a little encouragement–hence DraftRonnie.com.

Just as is noted on the draft site, Texas needs Ronnie Earle right now. Texas Democrats really need Ronnie Earle right now.

[Editor's Note: Although our thoughs on Kinky Friedman are well known, we'll no doubt be asked by many readers if we are somehow displeased with the thought that Sen. Kirk Watson's name has been mentioned as a gubernatorial candidate. The answer is no; we like and respect Sen. Watson and continue to think he is a good guy who would make an excellent Lieutenant Governor.—VL]

If you thought that the State Board of Education was done with creationism versus evolution a few months ago, think again.

David Barton, the far-right WallBuilders founder and pseudo historian who was appointed to sit on the Expert Review Panel for the state’s social studies standards wants to replace preeminent scientists with some who are darlings of the creationist movement.

Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub has more:

Why doesn’t Barton like Carl Sagan?  In addition to Sagan’s being a great astronomer, he was a grand populizer of science, especially with his series for PBS, Cosmos.

But offensive to Barton was Sagain’s atheism.  Sagan wasn’t militant about it, but he did honestly answer people who asked that he found no evidence for the efficacy or truth of religion, nor for the existence of supernatural gods.

More than that, Sagan defended evolution theory.  Plus, he was Jewish.

Any one of those items might earn the David Barton Stamp of Snooty-nosed Disapproval, but together, they are about fatal.

Do the scientists Barton suggests in Sagan’s stead measure up? Barton named four:

Wernher von Braun, Matthew Maury, Joseph Henry, Maria Mitchell, David Rittenhouse

In the category of “Sagan Caliber,” only von Braun might stake a claim.  Wernher von Braun, you may recall, was the guy who ran the Nazi’s rocketry program.  After the war, it was considered a coup that the U.S. snagged him to work, first for the Air Force, and then for NASA.  Excuse me for worrying, but I wonder whether Barton likes von Braun for his rocketry, for his accommodation of anti-evolution views, or for his Nazi-supporting roots.  (No, I don’t trust Barton as far as I can hurl the Texas Republican Party Platform, which bore Barton’s fould stamp while he was vice chair of the group.)

So, apart from the fact that von Braun was largely an engineer, and Sagan was a brilliant astronomer with major contributions to our understanding of the cosmos, what about the chops of the other four people?  Why would Barton suggest lesser knowns and unknowns?

Matthew Maury once headed the U.S. Naval Observatory, in the 19th century.  He was famous for studying ocean currents, piggy-backing on the work of Ben Franklin and others.  Do a Google search, though, and you’ll begin to undrstand:  Maury is a favorite of creationists, a scientist who claimed to subjugate his science to the Bible.  Maury claimed his work on ocean currents was inspired at least in part by a verse in Psalms 8 which referred to “paths in the sea.”  Maury is not of the stature or achievement of Sagan, but Maury is politically correct to Barton.

Joseph Henry is too ignored, the first head of the Smithsonian Institution. Henry made his mark in research on magnetism and electricity.  But it’s not Henry’s science Barton recognizes.  Henry, as a largely unknown scientist today, is a mainstay of creationists’ list of scientists who made contributions to science despite their being creationists.  What?  Oh, this is inside baseball in the war to keep evolution in science texts.  In response to the (accurate) claim that creationists have not contributed anything of scientific value to biology since about William Paley in 1802, Barton and his fellow creationists will trot out a lengthy list of scientists who were at least nominally Christian, and claim that they were creationists, and that they made contributions to science.  The list misses the point that Henry, to pick one example, didn’t work in biology nor make a contribution to biology, nor is there much evidence that Henry was a creationist in the modern sense of denying science.  Henry is obscure enough that Barton can claim he was politically correct, to Barton’s taste, to be studied by school children without challenging Barton’s creationist ideas.

Maria Mitchell was an American astronomer, the second woman to discover a comet. While she was a Unitarian and a campaigner for women’s rights, or more accurately, because of that, I can’t figure how she passes muster as politically correct to David Barton.  Surely she deserves to be studied more in American history than she is – perhaps with field trips to the Maria Mitchell House National Historic Landmark.  It may be that Barton has mistaken Mitchell for another creationist scientist. While Mitchell’s life deseves more attention – her name would be an excellent addition to the list of woman scientists Texas children should study – she is not of the stature of Sagan.

David Rittenhouse, a surveyor and astronomer, and the first head of the U.S. Mint, is similarly confusing as part of Barton’s list.  Rittenhouse deserves more study, for his role in extending the Mason-Dixon line, if nothing else, but it is difficult to make a case that his contributions to science approach those of Carl Sagan.  Why is Rittenhouse listed by Barton?  If nothing else, it shows the level of contempt Barton holds for Sagan as “just another scientist.”  Barton urges the study of other scientists, any other scientists, rather than study of Sagan.

Interesting. More analysis of Barton’s “review” here and here.

On his campaign website, Texas Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples is touting all of his hard work on food safety as a reason that Texans would want to re-elect him:

During his first term, Staples has met in-person with Texas families across the Lone Star State in pursuit of fulfilling his promise to visit all 254 counties. His first term focus has been on connectivity between rural and urban/suburban communities, promoting the state’s agriculture/livestock economies, public food safety, school nutrition programs, rural Texas jobs, and fairly enforcing the state’s weights and measures laws including calibration of gas station pumps.

Really? His first term was focused on (among other things) food safety? Wow. I must have missed that. Let’s take a look at Staples’ record on food safety.

Going back to 2006 and Staples initial run for Agriculture Commissioner, he was touting food safety as part of his platform. He mentioned that, along with “improving the lives of all Texans” in his 2007 inaugural address, too:

Pledging to “fight tirelessly to improve the lives of Texans,” Staples addressed the crowd of supporters, lawmakers and other elected officials for eight minutes, giving thanks to God, his parents and wife, Janet, and other family members.

Staples said the theme of his four-year term will be “Partners in Progress,” pointing out the impact that agriculture has on the state economy and in other areas.

The new ag commissioner said the food, horticulture and fiber industries collectively generate approximately $73 billion a year for the state’s economy or approximately 10 percent of Texas’ total gross state product.

“This is why I will help Texans market Texas products throughout the state, across the nation and around the globe,” Staples said. “Because people around the world deserve to experience the quality of product Texas has to offer. We want everyone to have the opportunity to Go Texan.”

Protection of private property rights, developing new water resources, renewable energy, recreational tourism and food safety and security were some of the other issues touched on by Staples during his comments.

Okay, it is report card time. How well did Staples do on the food safety campaign promise? He gets an “F,” although a “D” (f0r “diarrhea,” “dysentery,” and “disease”) might be more appropriate.

First, there was the tomato salmonella outbreak:

State health officials’ search for the source of tainted tomatoes thought responsible for a salmonella outbreak focused on Harris County on Wednesday, as medical workers reported that three more local cases of the potentially fatal food poisoning had been confirmed.

By late Wednesday, the county total stood at 15. Single cases were reported in Fort Bend and Brazoria counties. Statewide, the total jumped to 35 on Thursday.

Then, there was the jalapeno salmonella outbreak:

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced Monday that a sample of jalapeno pepper from a food distribution centre in McAllen, Texas, was a genetic match to the strain of Salmonella Saintpaul strain behind the current outbreak of Salmonella that has so far infected over 1,200 people nationwide.

And more toxic peppers:

The Texas plant, Agricola Zaragoza, has suspended sales of fresh jalapenos and recalled those shipped since June 30 — shipments it said were made to Georgia and Texas.

Those incidents were more than a year after Staples took office. What did Staples do about it? Nothing much.

Less than a year later, the agriculture products scare of the decade centered on Texas:

Tests show products at a Peanut Corporation of America subsidiary in Texas may be tainted with salmonella, state health authorities said on Tuesday.

The Texas Department of State Health Services said on Tuesday it requested that the plant be closed after the company reported the findings of a private lab.

Doug McBride, a health services spokesman, said the positive samples were taken last week and the private company’s lab results came back on Monday. State test results were expected to come back on Tuesday.

The company voluntarily closed its Plainview, Texas, plant on Monday night “after laboratory tests of sample products from the plant indicated the possible presence of salmonella in some products,” state health officials said.

And, the Texas Department of Agriculture was right in the middle of that controversy. Staples’ DOA certified the plant for its organic registry but didn’t bother to alert the Texas Department of Health that the facility was operating without proper permits or inspection:

The Texas plant had not been inspected for four years before last month. State officials blamed the plant for failing to register, but the plant had registered with the state’s organic certification program at the Texas Department of Agriculture. State officials could not explain Tuesday why the organic registry failed to alert health officials that the plant processed food and needed to be inspected.

Staples was running a fleet of inspectors that were evidently asleep at the wheel:

The Associated Press reported a Texas agriculture inspector, Gaylon Amonett, failed to disclose the local Peanut Corp. of America plant was operating without a state health department license despite at least three visits in the years before hundreds of people got sick.

The inspector responsible for certifying the plant to process organic products noted after each visit that the plant had such a license when it didn’t. Problems at the plant might have been flagged years ago had the inspector, who has since been fired, reported the plant’s failure to obtain the required license.

When the plant was finally inspected earlier this year, Texas health officials found dead rodents, rodent excrement and bird feathers in a crawl space above a production area, leading them to order a recall of all products the plant had shipped since 2005.

When did Staples finally do something? Only in the heat of the media firestorm over the Plainview peanut salmonella outbreak:

Two state agencies are joining forces to combat the devastating disruptions that occur when the food safety of farm products is called into question, according to a vegetable specialist with the Texas AgriLife Extension Service.

The Texas Department of Agriculture and AgriLife Extension are creating a program to help fruit and vegetable growers develop safety procedures that could help prevent food scares, said Dr. Juan Anciso.

“When edible farm products are linked to possible outbreaks of E. coli or Salmonella, the economic ripple is huge and many people suffer – consumers, farmers, packers, shippers, grocers, advertisers, lots of people,” Anciso said.

“[T]he economic ripple is huge and many people suffer…” Yep. But, it took three outbreaks–one very major–before Staples did anything. Even then, it was only a $92,000 “something:”

Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples announced recently that the Texas Department of Agriculture had allocated $92,000 to create the Food Safety Good Agricultural Practices Program, to be implemented under the guidance of AgriLife Extension.

$92,000 seems a bit of a band-aid given the circumstanes. As for Staples commitment to food safety, this photo from his Flickr album (with our comments added) makes one wonder just how committed he is:

That’s a definite FAIL.

We’ve done a bit of fact checking on David Barton’s analysis of the Texas Social Studies TEKS already, and now it is time to take a closer look at Barton’s analysis. Hang on for a bumpy ride.

First off, Barton is following the lead of Don McLeroy and other rightwing extremists by trying to turn social studies instruction in Texas into a course in religious doctrine. Note this from Barton’s Analysis:

Students should be familiar with the fundamental principles of America government set forth in the 126 words in the first three sentences at the beginning of the Declaration and those principles should be regularly reviewed throughout their tenure as a student:

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitles them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

(It is from this section that students are to recite by memory under state law.)

The principles set forth here and subsequently secured in the Constitution and Bill of Rights include:

1. There is a fixed moral law derived from God and nature

2. There is a Creator

3. The Creator gives to man certain unalienable rights

4. Government exists primarily to protect God-given rights to every individual

5. Below God-given rights and moral law, government is directed by the consent of the governed

Before we get into the religious aspects, let’s debunk a Barton Blunder.

Barton Notes: (It is from this section that students are to recite by memory under state law.)

The Reality Is: You’d be hard pressed to find any member of the Texas Legislature living or dead who ever cast a vote to require students to recite any excerpt of the portion of the Declaration of Independence Barton cites from memory. Why? Because no bill ever existed to require this, and it is not state law.

The entire portion of Texas law referencing what Barton is talking about is Section 29. 907 of the Texas Education Code. In its entirety, it reads:

Sec. 29.907.  CELEBRATE FREEDOM WEEK.  (a)  To educate students about the sacrifices made for freedom in the founding of this country and the values on which this country was founded, the week in which September 17 falls is designated as Celebrate Freedom Week in public schools.  For purposes of this subsection, Sunday is considered the first day of the week.

(b)  The agency, in cooperation with other state agencies who voluntarily participate, may promote Celebrate Freedom Week through a coordinated program. Nothing in this subsection shall give any other state agency the authority to develop a program that provides instruction unless funds are specifically appropriated to that agency for that purpose.

Nowhere does that state anything about recitation from memory. So, where did Barton devise this? It comes from the Texas Administrative Code. To be fair, Barton indicates that (although he actually cited the section of the TAC incorrectly.   The basis for Barton’s fantasy remark that Texas school children are required to “recite by memory” is TAC Title 19, Part 2, Chapter 74, Subchapter C, Rule 74.33, which states in part:

(1) Each school district shall require that, during Celebrate Freedom Week or other week of instruction prescribed under subsection (a) of this section, students in Grades 3 – 12 study and recite the following text: “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness–That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.”

Where doe Barton get that students have to recite this from memory? Who knows. He probably just made it up like he’s made up quotes from our founding fathers. The TAC clearly says “study and recite.” “Study” does not equal “memorize.”

And, let’s be clear about something else: while it may be a finite difference, the Texas Administrative Code is not law. It was not drafted or codified by the Texas Legislature. It was written by the state agencies themselves. They are considered rules.

Getting back to the religious overtones, let’s discuss those five principles Barton says should be regularly reviewed by students:

1. There is a fixed moral law derived from God and nature

2. There is a Creator

3. The Creator gives to man certain unalienable rights

4. Government exists primarily to protect God-given rights to every individual

5. Below God-given rights and moral law, government is directed by the consent of the governed

The study of history, government, and social studies is not the place to force religion on public school students. In addition, I think that the U.S. Supreme Court has spent two centuries interpreting the U.S. Constitution precisely so this kind of religious zealotry isn’t foisted upon public school children. Let’s face it: not all public school students are Judeo-Christian, and it is not the school’s duty to tell kids that government exists for these particular reasons. Furthermore, to say that government exists for these particular reasons is a bit dangerous, and Barton should see that.

Why? Here is one example. Slavery wasn’t outlawed by the U.S. Constitution. Using Barton’s rationale that government exists to protect the God-given rights of every individual, you essentially arise at then having to explain to students why God thought that slavery was just dandy for a few centuries and then thought it was bad. On top of that, you get to explain to a generation of African American why it took from the signing of the emancipation proclamation to the signing of the Civil and Voting Rights Acts (plus more) for the government to give them something God intended them to have in the first place. I fail to envy the fourth grade teacher who must answer the student who asks, “So, why did God allow slavery.” Furthermore, I doubt that many Texans want their fourth grade child’s teacher explaining why God did or did not allow anything.

Barton makes other mistakes as well. In addressing the interrelationship of the U.S. Constitution to the Declaration of Independence, he botches–pretty severely–a quotation from a U.S. Supreme Court case. Barton notes:

The interdependent relationship of these two documents was so clear that the U. S. Supreme Court has openly affirmed:

The latter [Constitution] is but the body and the letter of which the former [Declaration of Independence] is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.

Barton has used some pretty serious literary liberties here. The quote that Barton cites as an independent clause is actually part of a much larger sentence [we bold the part Barton cites]:

While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government.

That quote, by the way, comes from Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Ellis, 165 U.S. 150 (1897), which was actually a U.S. Supreme Court case marking the Court’s first instance of applying the Rational Basis Test.

That isn’t the only example of sloppy quotations by Barton. He quotes Alexis de Tocqueville incorrectly as well:

Alexis de Tocqueville, in his famous book Democracy in America, penned the phrase that has resulted in the term America Exceptionalism when he declared:

The position of the Americans is quite exceptional, and it may be believed that no democratic people will ever be placed in a similar one.

The problem is that Barton was evidently too lazy or didn’t care to actually quote de Tocqueville properly; he left out a word. The acutal quote reads:

The position of the Americans is therefore quite exceptional, and it may be believed that no democratic people will ever be placed in a similar one.

Evidently WallBuilders doesn’t employ a fact checker or proofreader–at least not one that can use Google and spell “de Tocqueville.”

In talking about the Founding Fathers, Barton also goes on and on about Charles Pinckney, who signed the constitution and introduced a resolution at the Constitutional Convention that some scholars say is the basis for the modern constitution:

Nowhere in the TEKS is definition given to who constitutes a Founding Father. and the current definition is dramatically different from the historic definition. The modern tendency has become to consider only half-a-dozen individuals as Founding Fathers; and while today’s writers consider James Madison as “The Father of the Constitution,” previous generations also accorded that title to George Washington, James Wilson, Roger Sherman, and Charles Pinckney – individuals largely ignored today. In fact, the finished Constitution was closer to the recommendations made by Charles Pinckney than to those of any other Framer, yet who today has heard of Charles Pinckney?

The probelm here is that what Barton purports to be true about Pinkney could be difficult to prove conclusively. From a work on the constitutional convention by John Vile:

When John Quincy Adams edited the official records of the Convention in 1818, he wrote to Pinckney asking for a copy of his original plan. Pinckney in turn presented Adams with a plan, which has many similarities to the Convention’s final product, and Adams published it. Given the numerous similarities between the Pinckney Plan and the Convention’s final product, from time to time, scholars have attributed major influence to the Pinckney Plan. Some have even accused Madison of suppressing the important role of this delegate, who was known for his egotism and general unpopularity among fellow delegates…

Madison appears to have been largely vindicated. Drawing from other scholarship, historian Max Ferrand has presented four reasons to doubt the plan Pinckney offered to Adams was his original. Farrand observed that the paper was not from the time of the Convention and appears to have been prepared in 1818 rather than at the time of the Convention; a number of its provisions are opposed to positions Pinckney was known to have taken from the Convention; the copy of the plan included provisions that were not reached until after weeks of dispute and compromise; and a copy of the speech Pinckney prepared for publication just before the Convention differs from the plan he presented to Adams in several significant respects…

In the early 1900s, among the papers of convention delegate James Wilson were found documents which could have been notes by Wilson or others about the Pinckney draft or, quite frankly, something else entirely. A 300 plus page monograph was actually published to address the questions of the Pinckney draft in 1908, and the questions that remained unanswered in that book remain unanswered today. Why Barton elects to try to steer the committee into this black hole that America’s foremost historians could argue about for days is unknown.

Later, on the subject of civic duty, we again have Barton playing fast and loose with quotations:

For example, James Wilson (signer of the Declaration and Constitution) declared: “To each class of rights, a class of duties is correspondent.” John Quincy Adams agreed: “The connection between a people and their government is a connection of duties as well as of rights.” Dewitt Clinton similarly declared: “If knowledge teaches man his rights, it also teaches him his duties.” (Significantly, the word “duty” appears no where in the TEKS yet it is a powerful word indicating the gravity of the responsibilities of a citizen.)

First, let’s take the James Wilson quote. First, Barton fails to note that Wilson was also one of George Washington’s initial appointments to the Supreme Court. That is important because the quote came not from any Wilson pontification at the Continental Congress or Constitutional Convention, but from a collection of collected works and lectures by Wilson on the law. Wilson was also a law professor. Again, we find Barton putting a period where he should have either finished the full quote or placed an ellipsis.

Barton Version: To each class of rights, a class of duties is correspondent.

Actual Version: To each class of rights, a class of duties is correspondent; as we had occasion to observe and illustrate, when we treated concerning the general principals of natural law.

The DeWitt Clinton quote is similarly skewed, but because it is taken well out of context.

Barton Version: If knowledge teaches man his rights, it also teaches him his duties

Actual Version: As ignorance is the patron of error and the enemy of truth, the diffusion of knowledge is friendly to the propagation of religion and the ascendancy of good government. If it teach man his rights, it also teaches him his duties. “Truth and goodness,” said an illustrious philosopher, “differs but as the seal and the print; for truth prints goodness, and they be the clouds of error which descend in the storms of passions and perturbations.”

Barton also fails to note that the original version comes from an address by Clinton on the seventh anniversary of the American Bible Society.

Barton’s treatment of the John Quincy Adams quote, however, is most perplexing.

Barton Version: The connection between a people and their government is a connection of duties as well as of rights

Actual Version: The connexion between different portions of the same people and between a people and their government, is a connexion of duties as well as of rights. (See page 16 of the link)

While we can forgive Barton for changing “connexion” to the modern spelling, one must wonder why on earth he dropped “different portions of the same” in front of people and added “a.” Literary license may be okay in films or even literature, but when you are reviewing social studies standards and quoting someone and purporting to be a historian, you have the duty to get the quotes right.

There are other quotations listed in Barton’s missive, and, to be quite frank, dissecting every one as we have tried to do up to now would be a chore for another day. However, we did find one more nugget to share, a quote Barton purports to be from Samuel Adams:

Religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness. SAMUEL ADAMS

In this case, we have a prime example of why Barton can best be classified as a pseudo historian, and why he has no business whatsoever evaluating a social studies curriculum standard.

Barton attributes this quote to Samuel Adams. A quick Google search shows that several internet websites do the same as well. One goes so far as to source the quote as coming from a letter from Sam Adams to John Trumbull on October 16, 1778.

Upon review of the actual letter, however, which would have been fairly easy for Barton to do, since it is actually transcribed online, we find this:

Mr Sherman was so obliging as to give me the perusal of your Letter to him, and I am happy that Congress as a Body concur with you in the Sentiment therein containd, having passd a Resolution by a great Majority expressing their Sense that true Religion & good Morals are the only solid Foundations of publick Liberty and Happiness [....] (3) I am Sir with the most cordial Esteem & Respect Yr Excys most obedt hbt servt S. A. [Emphasis added; the (3) indication indicates that five lines are missing from the original letter]

Samuel Adams clearly did not say that of his own words. It was, as Adams actually noted in the letter a quotation (the “whereas clause”, to be precise) from a resolution passed by the Continental Congress:

Whereas true religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness:

One would think Barton would know this. After all, he quotes from the same resolution on the WallBuilders website, citing the anti-gambling provision of what was essentially a morality resolution:

Whereas true religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness: Resolved, That it be, and it is hereby earnestly recommended to the several states, to take the most effectual measures for the encouragement thereof, and for the suppressing theatrical entertainments, horse racing, gaming, and such other diversions as are productive of idleness, dissipation, and a general depravity of principles and manners.

The quotation is incorrectly attributed to Samuel Adams because he quoted the resolution of the Congress in his letter. Barton, by failing to do fact checking (or, presumably, checking his own website), perpetuates the myth. And this is the kind of person we have reviewing curriculum standards?

David Barton, the pseudo-historian known for simply making up history and founder of WallBuilders and member of the Texas State Board of Education’s Expert Review Panel for Social Studies Curriculum, has a lot of concerns with the current social studies curriculum used in Texas. The problem is that much of what Barton has a concern with is either answered with an inaccuracy or appears to be based solely on prejudice.

Here is Barton’s review. We’ll be quoting from it throughout this post.

The first thing we would call readers’ attention to is the first thing that stood out to us when we gave Barton’s review an initial once-over.

In his review, Barton writes that the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the sacrifices they made must have more focus placed on them in the curriculum standards. He writes:

2. The Signatories of the Declaration and the Sacrifices they Made. Nowhere do the TEKS indicate that the writers of the Declaration should be examined; rather they only vaguely mention that students should “identify the contributions of significant individuals during the revolutionary period, including Thomas Jefferson and George Washington” [Grade 5 (b)(2)(A)]. The current modern trend is to present only two or three signers of the Declaration (in the aforementioned case, only one); and almost universally absent is any presentation of the personal sacrifices incurred in honoring their pledge of giving their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor. Virtually unknown to this generation are their sacrifices – that 7 of the 56 signers died during the Revolution; that 3 were made prisoners of war (and 3 wives of the signers were also made prisoners of war); 3 signers lost their children; 3 lost their wives; 17 lost their fortunes and estates; several lost their health; etc. Students should be asked to identify and study not just the typical two or three signers but several of them, including their character, sacrifices, family, and leadership. Such an historical examination will also inculcate the elements of patriotism and citizenship required by state law. [Emphasis added]

Barton’s statistics about Declaration signers somehow sounded familiar to us. Then, we remembered it sounded similar to an e-mail forward that started making the rounds back in 2000.  That email was collected and debunked at Snopes.com.

Sadly, Barton’s made-up history–even when close to right–is short on facts. Let’s pick it apart.

Barton Claim: 3 signers lost their children

Historical Record Shows: Abraham Clark of New Jersey saw two of his sons captured by the British and incarcerated on the prison ship Jersey. John Witherspoon, also of New Jersey, saw his eldest son, James, killed in the Battle of Germantown in October 1777. If there was a second signer of the Declaration whose son was killed while serving in the Continental Army, we have yet to find him.
DIFFERENCE: Only one signer actually “lost” a child, John Witherspoon. Clark’s sons were made POWs, but were not killed.

Now, how about that POW claim:

Barton Claim: that 3 were made prisoners of war (and 3 wives of the signers were also made prisoners of war)

Historical Record Shows: It is true that five signers of the Declaration of Independence were captured by the British during the course of the Revolutionary War. However, none of them died while a prisoner, and four of them were taken into custody not because they were considered “traitors” due to their status as signatories to that document, but because they were captured as prisoners of war while actively engaged in military operations against the British: George Walton was captured after being wounded while commanding militia at the Battle of Savannah in December 1778, and Thomas Heyward, Jr., Arthur Middleton, and Edward Rutledge (three of the four Declaration of Independence signers from South Carolina) were taken prisoner at the Siege of Charleston in May in 1780. Although they endured the ill treatment typically afforded to prisoners of war during their captivity (prison conditions were quite deplorable at the time), they were not tortured, nor is there evidence that they were treated more harshly than other wartime prisoners who were not also signatories to the Declaration. Moreover, all four men were eventually exchanged or released; had they been considered traitors by the British, they would have been hanged.

Richard Stockton of New Jersey was the only signer taken prisoner specifically because of his status as a signatory to the Declaration, “dragged from his bed by night” by local Tories after he had evacuated his family from New Jersey, and imprisoned in New York City’s infamous Provost Jail like a common criminal. However, Stockton was also the only one of the fifty-six signers who violated the pledge to support the Declaration of Independence and each other with “our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor,” securing a pardon and his release from imprisonment by recanting his signature on the Declaration and signing an oath swearing his allegiance to George III.

DIFFERENCES: Barton is off by three POWs. As for the wives, we only find a refrence to one wife being taken as prisioner, in this debunking of the same email Snopes debunks.

And how about that claim about those seven deaths:

Barton Claim: 7 of the 56 signers died during the Revolution.

Historical Record Shows: Nine signers died during the course of the Revolutionary War, but none of them died from wounds or hardships inflicted on them by the British. (Indeed, several of the nine didn’t even take part in the war.) Only one signer, Button Gwinnett of Georgia, died from wounds, and those were received not at the hands of the British, but of a fellow officer with whom he duelled in May 1777.

DIFFERENCES: Many. Number one, Barton’s basic facts are wrong: he says seven, the reality is nine. Number two, Barton intimates, going off the old myth, that the signers actually died as a result of the Revolution and not from old age or some other ailment totally unerlated to the war. Dying as a result of old age or gout during the same years as the American Revolution is far different from “dying during the Revolution,” actually implies.

We’ll have more later this evening; this is just for starters.

By now, you are no doubt familiar with the so-called Expert Panel the State Board of Education has appointed to review Social Studies Curriculum in Texas.

As we have noted before, the panel isn’t all experts. A couple are simply right-wing demagogues and religious zealots–hardly the kind of “experts” we need telling Texas teachers what to teach students.

This week, the first set of “reviews” undertaken by the expert panel were released. Over the next few hours, we’ll be bringing you several posts that show exactly why two of the members on the panel are (a) not experts and (b) the wrong choices for such a panel. Stay tuned.

Todd Staples (R-Palestine) announced this week that he will seek a second term as Texas Agriculture Commission.

The decision was unsurprising given that Staples, who has long desired upward mobility in state government, is trapped where he is.

He is unqualified to run for an open Attorney General spot, not able to compete dollar-for-dollar with Lt. Governor David Dewhurst in a potential U.S. Senate race, and smart enough not to make the mistake of running against popular Comptroller Susan Combs or Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson in a contested primary, and too inexperienced to compete with AG Greg Abbott for the Lieutenant Governor’s spot. Thus, the re-election announcement.

The re-election announcement did come with a couple of surprises: with no opponents formally announced yet (although Hank Gilbert is probably a sure thing on the Democratic side) Farm Bureau and the Texas & Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association are already endorsing Staples.

Among other things, this proves that Farm Bureau AgFund is essentially irrelevant as a political organization.

Interestingly enough, Staples announcement may be designed more to hold off challenges from within his own party than for anything else. Rumors of two potential GOP challengers for Staples–regardless of whether he remained in the race–have been rampant for the last two weeks.

Since 2004 when it endorsed Republican Randy Neugebauer (R-Lubbock) over longtime agribusiness ally Congressman Charlie Stenholm (D-Abilene)–who happened to be the ranking Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee–a lot of Texas politicos have been wondering exactly what the folk at the Texas Farm Bureau’s AGFUND are thinking.

Some were able to forgive the political action arm of the Texas Farm Bureau for its idiotic 2004 endorsement of Neugebauer. Perhaps they saw the political winds changing and simply didn’t want to be on the wrong side of the aisle. Although it wasn’t an endorsement that strictly in the best interest of agribusiness in Texas, it was, to a degree, understandable.

There was more head shaking in 2006 when AGFUND not only begged then-Sen. Todd Staples (D-Palestine) to enter the race for Agriculture Commissioner but later endorsed him in spite of the fact that he was a leading supporter of the Trans-Texas Corridor and the National Animal Identification System. Staples opponent, Hank Gilbert (D-Troup) opposed the TTC and NAIS. (Incidentally, the Farm Bureau has been

accused of selling out the very people it is supposed to represent on NAIS.) The TTC, of course, could destroy millions of acres of family farms across Texas. Sure, Gilbert may have been somewhat of a longshot, but how would endorsing Staples further the issues of importance to family farmers in Texas?

This year, the Texas Farm Bureau’s list of endorsements cause many to wonder whether or not the Farm Bureau’s AGFUND–once a true powerhouse, especially in rural districts–is really relevant any more on the Texas political scene.

Among the AGFUND’s questionable endorsement this year are U.S. Senator John Cornyn, Republican Tim Kleinschmidt (R-LaGrange) in Texas House District 17 House District 55 where AGFUND endorsed Ralph Sheffield over Sam Murphy, and a host of other endorsement that go to Republicans like State Rep. Myra Crownover (R-Denton) who aren’t friends of agriculture.  Not only that, but it appears that AGFUND, in many open seat races, didn’t even have the gut to endorse. AGFUND issued no endorsement in House District 101 where Robert Miklos (D-Mesquite) faces Republican Mike Anderson; no endorsement in House District 78 where Joe Moody (D-El Paso) faces Dee Margo (R-El Paso) for Pat Haggerty’s open seat; and no endorsement in House District 112 where Sandra VuLe (D-Richardson) face Angie Chen Button (D-Garland).

Isn’t AGFUND abdicating it responsibilities here by its strategy of simply going for incumbent protection, protecting the power of the Republican Party, and playing it safe when it comes to open seats?

And, since when has John Cornyn been a friend of agriculture?

Is AGFUND still relevant? I suppose we’ll find out on November 4.

Dallas attorney Eric Johnson, who intends to challenge State Rep. Terri Hodge (D-Dallas) in the 2010 Democratic Primary, reported in a press release this morning having raised over $60,000 since announcing his candidacy on June 5.

Although Rep. Hodge is presently under federal indictment (with a trial underway that is expected to last for months involving other co-defendants), she hasn’t been challenged since the indictments came down in 2007. And, given Hodge’s popularity and hard work for her district (and the fact that she maintains her innocence), it is a little surprising to see that Hodge has a firm challenger in advance of the outcome trial.

If Hodge is acquitted, I’m not sure that six times the amount Johnson has presently raised would help him defeat Hodge in a Democratic Primary, unless some nasty information that hasn’t already been in the media comes out in the trail.  She remains very popular. A look at Johnson’s TEC filing will probably tell us if the opinion leaders in the district have shifted from Hodge to Johnson, so we’ll check the report when it is on line with the Ethics Commission.

Basically, we echo Grits‘ (last paragraph) thoughts on Rep. Hodge.

That said, there is certainly nothing wrong with Johnson as a candidate, except that if Hodge wins her trial he could be running a very, very, very tough race. A Harvard-educated lawyer with a compelling personal story, he is certainly qualified. He previously worked on Rep. Yvonne Davis’ staff.

We’ll just have to see how this one shakes out.

State Rep. Leo Berman (R-Tyler) ended his gubernatorial campaign on Friday kind of like an Enzyte commercial: with an endorsement no one really believes.

Berman bowed out of the gubernatorial race and endorsed Texas Governor Rick Perry–the man who, all year, Berman has alleged has done nothing to stop illegal immigration.

Although Perry and Berman made the joint announcement on Friday [more on Perry's endorsement of Berman for his state legislative race in another post], word that Berman and Perry would be joining hands and singing “Shall We Gather At The (Rio Grande) River (And Turn Back Some Illegals)” was leaked on an abscure East Texas blog about a month ago, evidently thanks to Berman himself:

Leo Berman spoke at our Grassroots America We the People lunch meeting today and gave us what appears to be great news.  Apparently there is an agreement between Leo and Rick Perry that Leo will endorse Rick as Governor (rather than RUN AGAINST him) if Rick will publically declare his committment to 4 specific items (all of which we are thrilled about) !!  If Rick really does it then it SHOULD be good for our state!

Ironically, that leak came less than a week after former Tyler Mayor Joey Seeber announced he was in the running for Berman’s seat–whether Berman was in the governor’s race or not.

Here are a few tidbits from coverage of the Berman-Perry Lovefest:

Berman told the crowd that Perry’s record shows he is the only conservative in the race for governor.

“He supports limited government, limited taxation, traditional values, private property rights our Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms, and I am so proud of his pro-life record,” Berman said of Perry.

[...]
Perry agreed that continued diligence on the border is needed but pointed out the need for the problem, which has cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars, to be addressed federally as well. The governor did express, much to the crowd’s approval, his opinion that continued assertion of state’s rights will be needed to maintain Texas’ position as one of just six states in the nation not in dire financial crisis.

Note that the “so proud of his pro-life record,” remark by Berman is essentially the continuation of the GOP whisper campaign against Hutchison that has raged since the 1990s alleging that Hutchison is too pro-choice–a centerpiece of Perry’s primary campaign. Interestingly, Hutchison is about as pro-choice as a banana is an apple, but even one vote that can be construed as pro-life can kill you in a Republican Primary in Texas.

It is only July, and already the big guns are wading into the pending battle between State Rep. Leo Berman (R-Tyler) and former Tyler Mayor Joey Seeber in the 2010 GOP Primary.

Last Friday, in exchange for an endorsement for his 2010 Gubernatorial bid, Texas Governor Rick Perry endorsed Berman:

After Berman officially announced his candidacy for District 6, Perry expressed his full support for a man he said was a “rugged individualist” who has “spoken his heart with passion and clarity and with an overriding devotion to our nation.

“I’ve told him many times I would follow him anywhere, be in a foxhole any time he needs,” Perry said. “He has been a wonderful spokesperson for the people of Tyler and the state and nation.”

After you finish vomiting, you will no doubt recall that Leo Berman regularly speaks with anything resembling “clarity” and will no doubt recall that Leo Berman is something less than a “wonderful spokesperson” for the people of Texas.

That said, Perry has waged into the white, hot epicenter of what will be a bloodbath of a GOP Primary and has taken sides with a state legislator increasingly out of touch with his district in an a part of the state he can ill afford to make enemies in considering the impending contest with Kay Bailey Hutchison.

While Berman still has the ultra-conservative wing-nut vote on his side, he is rapidly losing white, middle and upper-middle class Republicans and the business community. Let’s not forget that Berman came within a hair of losing the district to a pro-public education candidate (who also happened to be an Hispanic businessman) in the 2006 GOP primary.

Consider, too, that conservative Republicans who are predicting a win for Berman simply don’t know what they are talking about:

Smith County Republican Party Chair Ashton Oravetz said the District 6 race between Berman and challenger, former Tyler mayor Joey Seeber, will be “a good one,” but because the district is the most conservative in the state and the incumbent has the conservative grassroots constituency on his side, Berman will win the primary.

Number one, House District 6 is not the most conservative state legislative district in the state. In fact, it is far from it. For example, HD 86, represented by State Rep. Delwin Jones (R-Lubbock) is far more conservative overall. HD 86 broke 76/23 forMcCain over Obama. Berman’s Smith/Gregg county district far behind that, breaking 68/30 for McCain over Obama.

Number two, while Berman’s district has its share of far-right conservatives, it has far more middle class traditional conservatives whose children attend public schools, and a lot of professionals who are conservatives who are simply embarassed by Berman’s continued idiocy.

Number three, Berman really hasn’t performed much for Tyler and Smith County (where most of his votes will come from) in the last few sessions. Instead, he’s focused more on his wingnut statewide issues like immigration, speaker politics, and trying to mess with teacher’s unions.