Friday, October 31, 2008

Goolsby's House lounge; Obama campaign plane

The Nightly Build...

Goolsby: "I'm up to my ass in a damn campaign."

The AP reports that the Texas House is splurging on renovations to its members lounge, including $30,000 worth of antique wood furnishings, in a time when Gov. Rick Perry is ordering state agencies to cut the budgets. Who is responsible for this wasteful use of taxpayer dollars? Well, let's ask the people in charge. House Speaker Tom Craddick said he's not responsible. He throws Dallas representative Tony Goolsby under the bus, saying it's the chairman of the House Administration committee who is responsible for the expenditures. What does Tony Goolsby say?

"Goolsby said he hadn't kept up with [the project] because he's been too focused on his own political survival in a district where supporters of Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama -- and presumably his opponent Carol Kent -- are highly energized. 'I'm up to my ass in a damn campaign,' Goolsby said. 'This is the only job I've got and I'm trying to save it. Obama's got people coming from the rafters.'"
LOL. Burnt Orange Report thought so much of Goolsby's quote that they led with it and repeated it twice more in their short coverage of the AP story.

If this is the only job Goolsby's got, you'd think he'd be doing a better job at it than splurging on redecorating in the face of an economic recession the likes of which our country hasn't seen in a long time. Maybe it's time to give the job to Carol Kent. She'll do a better job of protecting taxpayer money and ensuring it's spent on projects that benefit taxpayers instead of 19-year House incumbents.


No Plane Ride for DMN

The Drudge Report today reported that the Obama campaign plane is getting crowded and three newspapers are getting the boot in the last two days before the election. One of the newspapers is The Dallas Morning News. One thing all three have in common: they all endorsed John McCain.

Rabid wingnuts were quick to let their opinion be known in the comment thread of DMN Trailblazers blog item explaining the background to the Drudge news.

"Karen" says, "Obama and his gestapo has made it clear that critics will be punished." And then she gets mean. "El Bueno" says, "You've been Brown Shirted. ... OBEY!" "tracey" says, "get ready AMERICA.....you get what you deserve if you vote in OBAMA...he will take away your hard earned money, right to free speech and guns just to start with. ... What is wrong with you people?????????????"

The truth is more prosaic. Demand for seats on the campaign plane goes up in the last days of a campaign. DMN is a regional newspaper not in a swing state. DMN has had the same trouble with the McCain campaign. Business is business. And winning an election is big business.

But there are two sidelines to this story that deserve more attention. First, the news was broken by the Drudge Report, not DMN. Why is that? Every newspaper in the country is in financial trouble. Most, including DMN, are retreating to a defensive position of focusing on local news. What's more local than what's happening to DMN reporters? How can they let Drudge scoop them? Another instance of this were the layoffs at DMN last week. What's more local than what's happening in DMN's own newsroom. Yet, hardly a word was said in the newspaper or in the paper's own blogs.

Second, in downplaying news of being booted from the Obama plane, DMN says it's had the same trouble with the McCain campaign. That's not an exoneration; that's an indictment. That indicates that DMN doesn't have the size and stature that it imagines it has. That downward spiral is only likely to continue as cutbacks in the newsroom leads to skimpier news coverage which leads to ever declining readership and revenues which leads to even more cutbacks. Will DMN even be around to request a seat on the Obama 2012 re-election campaign plane?

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Crime and race; D and Observer

The Nightly Build...

What's Race Got To Do With It?

If there's a shooting, count on Trey Garrison to show up. After all, he used to work for Dallas Blog, where he covered the crime beat, telling us when every inmate on death row was scheduled to die. Today on his blog, it's a column by James Ragland of The Dallas Morning News that catches his eye. Ragland points out that a homeowner who confronted a burglar and ended up shot and stabbed, failed to provide a detailed description of the assailant. This sends Garrison off on a tangent, complaining that newspapers often don't report a suspect's race when they report crime stories. WTF? Can you say non sequitur? What's race got to do with Ragland's story?

But now that Garrison brings it up, I do seem to remember that in all those Dallas Blog stories about impending executions, Garrison never missed an opportunity to highlight the condemned man's race, at least when he was African-American. Hmmm... But that's just how I remember it. I could be wrong. I usually don't pay too much attention to race.


Cat Fight in Dallas Media

Tim Rogers has a column in this month's D Magazine titled "Why the Observer Stinks." Yawn. If you want to goose sales, create a controversy. If you want to draw attention to yourself, call someone else names. It's worked since the schoolyard, I'm sure it'll work today in Dallas media.

But if you don't want to look like a total idiot about it, pick a subject to complain about other than the Observer's coverage of the Trinity River Corridor project, which has been first-rate. Jim Schutze was a model of what good investigative reporters do. Sam Merten's work at Dallas Blog was in the same vein. (See, I can say something nice about Dallas Blog.) The highest value of a free press lies in its role as watchdog for the public interest, something that The Dallas Morning News and D Magazine show no interest in filling.

In today's Unfair Park, Sam Merten fires back at Rogers. Rogers definitely comes out the worse for the exchange. Idiot.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Divided government

The Nightly Build...

Other Options for Nobama Voters

Trey Garrison is a conservative Republican who is embarrassed to admit same, a political species that is not all that rare this election. But he spends little time on self analysis and practically ignores John McCain altogether, training all his criticism on Barack Obama. So, what's a Nobama like Garrison to do, when you want to see Obama fail but don't want to be seen supporting McCain? You can call for divided government in an attempt to make your anti-Obama vote sound principled and not just negative. Or you can mention the Libertarian candidate, always a safe choice because he has no chance of winning. Finally, there's the option of not voting at all. Garrison covers all three in his blog posts today.

Garrison approvingly links to an essay titled, "You Choose, You Lose: What happens when the two evils are pretty much equal?" No need to read further. If you guess that an essay that starts by presuming Democrats and Republicans are both "evil" probably has an author with an axe to grind, you'd be right. Author Jacob Sullum is at least aboveboard, coming right out and telling us he intends to vote for Libertarian candidate Bob Barr. Neither Sullum nor Garrison defend Barr as much as condemn McCain and Obama. That leads Garrison to his ultimate protest, taking his ball and going home and not voting at all. Garrison nods approvingly at Brian Doherty, the author of another essay that suggests that "the whole game of majority-rule ... is inherently illegitimate."

Sometimes I think Garrison is putting us on, writing self satire. In this case, the giveaway might be the oxymoronic name of the online magazine Garrison links to: Reason.

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

PUMA

The Nightly Build...

PUMAs Not Extinct

Karen Brooks, in The Dallas Morning News Trailblazers blog, relates the reaction to her story about the PUMA (Party Unity My Ass) movement. PUMA was started by Hillary Clinton supporters as backlash against calls for party unity following Barack Obama's securing the Democratic nomination for President. The gist of Brooks' story is:

"If the polls and the media are any indication, the once-ferocious roar of the PUMAs is sounding more like the quiet, harmless purr of a kitten."
Predictably, that triggered a rash of reader responses saying it's not so, that millions of PUMAs are out there, that they are just as unreconciled, just as determined as ever to oppose Barack Obama and tip the election to John McCain. They even have an explanation why their numbers appear to be so small -- they are lying to pollsters, telling them they plan to vote for Obama. They predict one of the biggest upsets in presidential election history.

That theory is far-fetched, but the depth of the disaffection of the PUMAs is real, even if their numbers are dwindling. These are voters who started out supporting Hillary Clinton, but no longer follow her lead as Clinton endorses Obama/Biden over McCain/Palin. These are voters who supported Clinton's positions on health care, women's rights, the economy, foreign policy, the environment, etc., but now claim to support John McCain, whose own positions on those issues are opposed to hers. Sarah Palin's positions are, if anything, even more opposed to Clinton's than McCain's are. A Clinton candidacy that a year ago was so positive and forward looking has dissolved, leaving only the PUMAs who draw their strength from negative feelings about the past.

Ironically, the McCain campaign is now an alliance of people who hated Hillary and people who loved Hillary. I wonder what they find to talk about at the McCain rallies. Probably how much they both hate Barack Obama. Strong motivation in an election campaign, certainly, but not much of a platform for governing once they win the election. Thankfully, there's not much chance they'll be required to do any governing after the election results are known.

Monday, October 27, 2008

Divided government; Goolsby's environmental record

The Nightly Build...

McCain Implies Congress Is Lost

In recent ads and campaign speeches, John McCain implies Congress is lost and Congress implies the White House is lost. Republicans are beginning to use their coming electoral losses as arguments against each other. Implicit in both these arguments is that divided government is good for America.

Michael Landauer takes up the perceived wisdom in a blog post on The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog. He quotes from the The Dallas Morning News' own endorsement of John McCain:

"In better times, America could afford to consider entrusting the White House to an appealing newcomer like Mr. Obama and giving control of the presidency and Congress to the same party."

This makes no sense. If America is facing crises (and we are, two wars and the worst financial collapse since the Great Depression), why would we want ineffective government, bogged down by inter-party bickering and politics? When decision-making needs to be swift and firm, divided government is a recipe for failure. The News' argument actually makes sense only in reverse. In good times, America can afford divided government. In a crisis, voters should choose wisely and empower the winner to defeat the threats facing our country.

I can't find the text of the 2004 endorsement by The Dallas Morning News editorial board, but I know they endorsed George Bush, so they didn't worry then about Republicans having control of both Congress and the White House for another four years. This year, The Dallas Morning News endorsed John McCain for President, John Cornyn for Senator, and Sam Johnson, Pete Sessions, Joe Barton and other Republicans for Congress. The News has no concerns at all about recommending pretty much straight-ticket Republican voting and using any and all arguments to win votes, including fear of straight-ticket voting and the possibility that Democrats might end up winning too many races.


Tony Goolsby Blows Smoke At Voters

KERA radio aired an interview with Texas District 102 Rep. Tony Goolsby today in which Goolsby claims that he's always supported clean air and environmental issues. In a fact check, Burnt Orange Report details thirteen votes on environmental issues last legislative session. In ten votes, Goolsby voted against clean air and clean energy. (Two votes were consensus measures that passed unanimously.) BOR identifies Carol Kent as the "real clean air candidate" for District 102.

It's becoming a trait in this election for Republicans to run ads that present them as 180 degree opposites of what they've stood for in the past (and probably what they'll stand for again if voters are foolish enough to re-elect them). Tony Goolsby is just the latest of these extreme-makeover Republicans.

Friday, October 24, 2008

Morning News layoffs; Straight-ticket voting

The Nightly Build...

Read All About It... Or Not

Rob Wilonsky, on Unfair Park blog, links to a blog post by Rod Dreher of The Dallas Morning News about layoffs taking place at the News today. Dreher calls it "Black Friday" and talks about the miserable situation for the newspaper industry in general, not just the News. At the end, Dreher asks readers to click on his link to the new Dallasnews.com Opinion site, which Dreher edits, to help keep at least him among the employed.

What jumps out at me about this sad story? First, I hear the news not from The Dallas Morning News, but from Unfair Park. Second, the News' own employee, Rod Dreher, tells us what's going on, not on the News' own Web site, but from his sideline blog at Beliefnet. Third, when you go to the New's Opinion site, which Dreher plugs, you don't see any opinion about the layoffs. In fact, you find links to other Web sites like Unfair Park and The Observer, where, more and more it looks like you find the real news.

I'm not saying I know how to save the newspaper business. But I do know that The Dallas Morning News acting like it still has a monopoly on news in Dallas, controlling what's news and what isn't, isn't helping itself. Who better to write about what's happening in the local newsroom than the News' employees themselves, eyewitnesses to events? When the News is the last place to cover the news, you know a little why this newspaper, at least, doesn't stand a chance in the new economy.


Vote Straight-Party And Irritate the News

The Dallas Morning News published its second editorial trying to scare voters away from voting a straight-ticket. Given that Dallas County voters tended to vote Democratic in 2006, the implication is clear. The Dallas Morning News is trying to save a few Republican seats this year.

The logic used is intellectually dishonest. The editorial says that instead of voting for a party, look for recommendations from "groups that represent your interests," like "Texas Right to Life" and the "Texas State Rifle Association" and the "Texas Heritage Alliance." They include a token liberal group, but by excluding political parties, The Dallas Morning News implies that the Texas Democratic Party isn't a "group that represents your interest." Or the Texas Republican Party, for that matter, but in that case, maybe the News is implicitly conceding that the GOP doesn't represent voters' interest.

The Dallas Morning News doesn't list one of the most valuable sources of information on the candidates. That's the information produced each year by the League of Women Voters, a non-partisan political organization dedicated to citizen education and advocacy. Support your local league. Learn about the candidates. Then, don't be afraid of voting a straight-party ticket. Many informed voters do just that.

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Polling place electioneering

The Nightly Build...

Free Speech or Illegal Electioneering?

Did you ever wonder why, when you go to the polls on election day, that a forest of campaign signs has sprung up overnight, but not in the voting booth itself, not in the polling room, not in the hallway outside the polling room, not at the door to the building housing the polls, and not on the walk leading up to the door? You may also be met in the parking lot by a volunteer passing out campaign literature, but not at the doorway or inside the polling place. This is not an accident. It's not a courtesy by the politicians running for office. It's because of laws prohibiting people from "distributing," "circulating," "posting," or "exhibiting" campaign materials within a certain distance of polling places. In Texas, the ban includes buttons, t-shirts, hats and not just standalone signs. Ironic, isn't it, that the one place you can escape the incessant electioneering that marks American politics is the voting booth itself? Ironic and welcome.

Not to Trey Garrison. In a rant on his own blog, he lays into laws that keep electioneering a respectful distance from the polling booths. He says he's wracked his brains and can't come up with any reasons why we might want to prohibit polling place electioneering. He insists that polling place electioneering is "one of our most sacred rights enumerated in the first 10 Amendments." He says "The Powers That Be" need help remembering they're there to serve us. And this voter, for one, appreciates their efforts to ensure that I can vote in peace, in the one place in America where the politicians can't go, the polling place itself.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Palin's wardrobe; Baptists and the Pill; Email urban legends

The Nightly Build...

Palin Spends 4X a Plumber's Income for Clothes

Todd Gillman, on The Dallas Morning News Trailblazers blog, cites a story today about Sarah Palin going on a shopping spree to Saks and Neimans, spending $150,000 of campaign money since September on clothes. The McCain campaign says it all OK because she plans to donate the clothes to charity after she's done wearing them. OK. Gillman says this doesn't pass the smell test. All I have to say is...

"I feel pretty,
Oh, so pretty,
I feel pretty and witty and bright!
And I pity
Any girl who isn't me tonight."

"Fundamentalism Run Amok"

The sh*t hit the fan at Soutwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, when Thomas White, vice president for student services, told his students that use of birth control pills is murder. Bruce Tomaso passes on the story from WFAA, which sought comment from Dwight McKissic, former trustee at Southwestern.

"This is fundamentalism run amok, and I'm concerned that once was the world's largest theological seminary is degenerating into a Baptist fundamentalist indoctrination camp."
Why do churches act like we're still in the Middle Ages? If they are going to fall victim to arrested development, why 1300, and not, say, 33 AD, or, my favorite, 1962? Churches are like DisneyWorld, where they arbitrarily froze Tomorrowland at 1955's vision of the future.

Why Do Only Republicans Fall For Email Smears?

Steve Blow, in The Dallas Morning News Metro blog, relates yet another political urban legend that circulates forever by email. Is it the "Obama is a secret Muslim" slur? Is it the "Obama refuses to salute the flag" slander? It could be any of a hundred smears Obama has been victim to this election. This time, in Steve Blow's email inbox is the "Obama isn't a US citizen" allegation. Blow quickly dismisses the unfounded charge, then asks some thought-provoking questions: "Where are the emails with kooky allegations against John McCain?" "Don't Democrats like urban legends, too?"

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Income diversity; World for Obama

The Nightly Build...

Republican Thinks Diversity is Good... In Income

Trey Garrison, on his own blog, finds disturbing a study by the Institute of Urban Policy Research at UT-Dallas that takes as a premise that it's a good thing for a city to have similarity of economic opportunity, self-sufficiency and involvement in civic life across the city.

I am not surprised if Garrison argues that diversity in culture, religion, entertainment, politics, etc., is not of interest. After all, he's boasted before of his joy in living in his Plano neighborhood where everyone goes to Home Depot on Saturday mornings, just like him. There are plenty of people like him for whom "diversity" is a dirty word.

What surprises me (but, in hindsight, I realize it shouldn't have) is that Garrison does value diversity in at least one respect. He values diversity in income. He is all in favor of the kind of diversity that ensures we always have poor people (as long the poor people are restricted to their own neighborhoods, not his).

Jesus famously said, "For you always have the poor with you." Garrison's corollary is: "There is always going to be [an income] gap, and that gap widens even if everyone makes exactly the same percentage gain in income." The problem with Garrison's corollary is that everyone isn't making exactly the same percentage gain in income. The rich are making bigger percentage gains. In fact, the middle class isn't gaining at all. Their incomes are stagnant or even shrinking while the incomes of the rich continue to rack up bigger and bigger gains (even in percentage terms). The gap is getting wider.

For a generation after FDR's New Deal, the income gap shrank. It corresponded to the rise of the middle class in the United States. Education, home ownership, cars, televisions and vacations to the beach or mountains became affordable for the first time to the middle class, not just the rich. Many Americans look on the period as a golden age in American history.

But for the last generation, the income gap has been widening again. Today, in the America of George W. Bush, income distribution is again statistically closer to the Great Gatsby levels of inequality of the 1920s. Maybe Garrison looks back fondly on that era. Maybe he's willfully ignorant of the contrast between the luxury and poverty that defined the era. That era ended badly with a stock market crash and a great depression. The Institute of Urban Policy Research's "Dallas Wholeness Index" can help tell us whether our own era is at risk of recreating those long-ago mistakes.


World Opinion Favors Obama For President

Michael Landauer, in The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, cites a new Gallup poll of world opinion that supposedly shows the globe favoring Obama over McCain by a margin of 4-to-1. Landauer considers the poll to be of little importance. He says, "He's not running for president of the world. Besides, the world is stupid. The world favors soccer to football. I mean, c'mon."

But if the poll is going to matter, Landauer thinks having world opinion on your side might be a distinct advantage in case of a world crisis. I think it's dangerous to American national security that Republicans consider the world having a favorable opinion of you is a negative. It's like they now want their candidates to go out of their way to insult the rest of the world, adversaries and allies alike. How did a major political party go so far astray from America's strategic interest?

Monday, October 20, 2008

Newspaper endorsements

The Nightly Build...

"Cognitive Dissonance and Willful Ignorance"

This weekend, The Dallas Morning News endorsed John McCain for President. No surprise here. The reasons given were, at best, stretching the truth, putting lipstick on a pig to coin an expression. Burnt Orange Report describes such endorsements as "less like a 'voice for the community' and much more like a 'voice for the cognitive dissonance and willful ignorance that inhabits corporate board rooms.'"

  • TDMN calls McCain "a decisive break from the Bush years". This is the candidate who boasted of having voted with Bush 95% of the time.
  • TDMN praises McCain's support for the Iraq war as somehow in opposition to his own party. Like McCain had to talk Bush into a "stay the course" strategy.
  • TDMN praises McCain for campaign finance reform, an issue McCain has run away from.
  • TDMN praises McCain for immigration reform, even though McCain has said if given a re-do, he would vote against his own bill.
  • TDMN praises McCain for promising to freeze domestic spending (except for all the things he's promising more funding for - the military, NASA, autism research).
  • TDMN praises McCain for his "progressive conservatism." That's this year's version of "compassionate conservatism," which TDMN endorsed in 2000 and 2004. That worked out well, don't you think?

There's a lot of historical revisionism and wishful thinking in this editorial. But it had to be thus. How else to write an endorsement for a Republican candidate for President after the disasters that current Republican rule has left us with? TDMN says electing a president is not a popularity contest. No, for TDMN, it's simply a matter of looking for which candidate has the "R" after his name and pretending because the name is different, he represents change.

What strikes me about this editorial is the intellectual dishonesty of it. TDMN pitches McCain as a change agent. But it offers not a single example of where the platform McCain is running on differs from Bush -- not on the war, on taxes, on health care, not even immigration. I could understand if TDMN said it was happy with the results of the Bush administration and recommended four more years. I wouldn't agree with it, but it would at least be an intellectually honest endorsement.

This endorsement is particularly hypocritical given yesterday's TDMN editorial against voting a straight party ticket. After endorsing Cornyn, Sessions, Barton, Johnson and practically every other Republican in sight, TDMN now endorses... surprise, Republican John McCain. You have to get down pretty far on the ballot to find a token Democrat or two.

I suspect the editorial board was coerced into this endorsement. For evidence, I look to the wording of the endorsement itself, looking for a tell that signals coercion, like the SOS eye-blink of a prisoner of war. Maybe it's this sentence: "Mr. McCain offers the continuity, stability and sense of authority people want, as well as a decisive break from the Bush years." Continuity and a decisive break in the same sentence. Only an idiot would write a sentence like that but the editorial board is not made up of idiots. Coercion is the only explanation that makes sense.