Things That Drive Me To Drinking…A Redistricting Commission

July 27th, 2008 by Jake Hatlin | Posted in Talking Policy | 4 Comments »

Can you feel that energy in the air, that silent pulse of electricity that has slowly but surely gained steam over the last five years?  I felt it too, and I know what it is…redistricting is upon us.  Yes, it is true, in less than two and one half years, our esteemed lawmakers will be back in Austin redrawing our various districts for public office.  It has been too long.

Is there any more fun to be had with watching the Legislature than in a redistricting year?

Now, I can feel you saying that I am getting a head of myself, but I would argue not.  Even though we have a regular session still to go before we get to redistricting, people are already talking about this election cycle as one of democrats’ last two shots at taking a majority in the Lege before the pencils and maps are pulled out of the closet.

So since it’s on the minds, naturally people are talking about redistricting as well.  I have to confess, other than Texas picking up three congressional seats, I really don’t know what is in the works.  I’m not sure which parts of Texas are going to gain and which parts are going to lose, so I can’t comment extensively.  But one redistricting topic that keeps coming up that I do want to weigh in on is the concept of a non-partisan Redistricting Commission.

The concept of a non-partisan commission drawing our various legislative districts is a great minority party idea that makes that party look like the good guy when ever the press gets worked up over a map they don’t like.  Democrats are talking big about a commission right now, and if I remember correctly, even some Republicans supported the idea back in the 80s and 90s. 

But that is all the concept is to me, a soundbite for the minority party.  I can’t support the idea of a new commission taking the map drawing responsibility out of the Legislature’s hands, for several reasons.  Stay with me, gentle reader, as we explore each.

How Are We To Fill This Commission?

Suppose we did create a nine member board to draw all of our maps for us (I arbitrarily throw that number out there).  How will we fill these seats?  Will we make them Governor appointments, and if so, is everyone at the table comfortable with the Governor having a monopoly over commission membership?  Since such commission would easily become the most publicized commission Texas would have, I will venture to say the answer to that question is no.

So do we elect them?  That would be counter productive because then we would have to draw them districts and inevitably they would wind up someday drawing their own districts.  I guess we could elect them statewide, but then certain regions (such as west and south Texas) run the big risk of getting run over when all our Redistricting Commissioners end up calling either Central Texas, DFW, or Houston their homes.  Besides, would you honestly trust someone who ran for office only to redistrict?  I wouldn’t.

It’s The Legislature’s Job To Redistrict

It is not their job to punt the ball, which is exactly what forming a commission to redistrict would be.  I know that the decision is a tough one to make, and I know that there is a lot at stake with our legislative maps, but isn’t making the tough decisions what we elect our officials to do?  When I go to the ballot box, I expect the person I vote for to stand up tall during dire circumstances, not find someone else to push the task off on.

There is the argument that it is a conflict of interests for the Lege to draw the lines that include their own districts, and while I can respect that argument I point to the counter argument that there are several decisions they make that you could call a conflict of interests.  Are we also to appoint a lawyer policy commission because many of our Legislators also practice law?  How about a Commission for elderly policy?  Many of our lawmakers are over 55 and thus have a conflict in this area.  What about property taxes?  Since all of our lawmakers either own or rent property, isn’t it as much of a conflict in interest to charge them with reforming our property tax system?

Will A Commission Really Solve The Perceived Problem?

I doubt it will.  An appointed commission is just as likely to want to monkey with the lines as the Legislature is.  The reason is because they, too, are humans, humans with an agenda, humans with friends they want to help out, humans who are prone to make mistakes.

I am not saying that the Legislature has always done a bang up job with redistricting.  2003 was a mess, but so was 2001 when democrats controlled the lower chamber.

Conclusion

There are more reasons as to why I give a Redistricting Commission the stink eye, but I won’t bore you with more detail.  Besides, all this talk has made me thirsty, so off to the bar I go. 

I know it’s Sunday afternoon…don’t judge.  I’m sure you’ve done it before yourself.

There Is Such A Thing As Timing

July 26th, 2008 by Jake Hatlin | Posted in Talking Policy | 3 Comments »

What happens when your timing is off?  It could leave you out in front of your wide receiver with a long pass, or it could mean that you let the cat out of the bag a little earlier (or later) than planned.  In the case of the Texas state government, not having their timing down has left them on the wrong side of small business owners across the state.

The situation is simple, Texas is trying to reduce its cost of doing business by streamlining the office suppliers who keep the shelves of our many state agencies stocked with pens and paper.  As such, the current long list of suppliers approved for state agencies to shop at is about to be reduced to just two large scale suppliers so that the cost of units will go down and Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Taxpayer get to see more of their tax dollars put to use elsewhere. 

There’s just one problem, the vast amount of businesses that are going to lose their state office supplier status are small businesses, and they’re really pissed off about it.  Many publications across the state reported this story, but the Austin American Statesman gets the link because apparently I am trying to keep their columnists employed.

According to the AAS, pulling the estimated 400 million dollars a year that the state regularly spends on furniture and office supplies away from small business competition is going to leave many of those small businesses who have grown accustom to being a vendor struggling to make ends meet.  From the article, written by David Shieh:

The news has distressed small-business owners across the state, many of whom say they rely on the state contracts to keep their operations afloat. Although the comptroller’s office has invited small businesses to participate in the bidding process, only a handful of companies — large corporations such as Staples or OfficeMax — would be able to handle the size of the proposal…  

Now, normally I am a fan of our state government looking for ways to save a buck because I think that our government should run more like a private business by keeping its cost of operation as low as possible.  However, in this particular case the timing of the cost saving move will likely leave the money saved (about 12 - 15 million a year if I heard correctly) not worth the aftermath of the damage done to Texas’ relationship with its small business owners.

If you’re as clever as I hope, then you have picked up on the timing issue that I am referring to.  Small business in Texas was already pissed off at the state before word of this move ever broke.  Why?  The new and improved business franchise tax that they just had to dig deep and find a way to pay for earlier this summer.  I can almost guarantee you that if any of the businesses about to get squeezed out of their office supplier contracts also had to cut a check to the Comptroller then they aren’t going to vote for a single incumbent come this November, Republican or Democrat…it doesn’t matter.

So there in lies the problem.  Small business already feels the victim of the state by the business franchise tax (which is a debate for another time), and as they see it the state is now back no less than 60 days later to rub salt in that wound by taking more money from the till.  Sure, it is highly probable that only a small fraction of small businesses in Texas are going to be effected by this, but that doesn’t matter.  Who do you think other small business owners are going to side with when they read about this in the paper, the state or their own brethren? 

I remember once back in the day I decided to get back at a friend who was habitually taking advantage of my generosity by going behind his back one night and running up his bar tab to an insane ammount and then ducking out just before it was time to close out.  But just to show that there was no hard feelings, I picked up the tab next time out even though - dollar for dollar - I was still well short on retribution.  I did so because I didn’t want to stick it to my friend in back to back fashion.  That would not have been good timing.  As it turns out, we’re still friends today.

We’ll see if Texas incumbents and small business are still friends come November.

Now That Is The Kent Hance That I Know And Love

July 25th, 2008 by Jake Hatlin | Posted in Talking Policy | No Comments »

What is not to love about Kent Hance?  A former State Senator, Congressman and Railroad Commissioner, Mr. Hance has not let his new post as Chancellor of Texas Tech University slow down his natural born skill to shoot from the hip and say what is on his mind.

Arguably, it was this trait that allowed Mr. Hance to top George W. Bush in a 1978 Congressional race, where Mr. Hance’s one-liners and zings effectively portrayed the current President (and former Governor of Texas) as not a real Texan.  30 years later, Mr. Hance’s words are still serving him well.

While testifying before a Senate Higher Education Subcommittee, Mr. Hance proudly spoke his mind by pointing out that perhaps the research that Texas Tech University is doing for the Defense Department is a bit more important than Texas’s studies in Humanities.  Specifically, Mr. Hance said:

…research on “the best part of Shakespeare’s play” isn’t on the same level as the research his university is conducting for the Defense Department.

Now see, this is what you get when two universities compete for research dollars in front of Texas Senators, great sound bites.  University of Texas President William Powers did offer a well thought out counter argument in defense of his university’s practices, though.

However, On this one I’m going to have to side with Mr. Hance.  His one-liner was far more entertaining and frankly, would you rather a university be able to improve and bring innovation to our nation’s defense systems or answer the age-old riddle of, “To be, or not to be?”

Now, that is the question.

Finding A New Punching Bag - John Kelso

July 25th, 2008 by Jake Hatlin | Posted in Talking Policy | 3 Comments »

I’ll tell you, I haven’t been myself lately.  I’ve been snapping a people on the street, sending back my coffee at Starbucks, cutting people off on the highway, and pulling the heads off of my sister’s Barbi dolls.  Today after telling a five year old that Santa Claus wasn’t real and that I backed over the Easter Bunny last spring, I think I figured out the problem.

I’ve got a lot of pent-up aggression, made so from my about-face with Burnt Orange Report.  Ever since I decided to change my tone with Texas’ leading liberal blog (see, there I go again), I haven’t had a punching bag to beat on.

So we are now holding open tryouts to fill the position of my own personal punching bag, so that I can return to the calm and even-headed Jake Hatlin who waits until children are eight before shattering their Christmas dreams.  First up, a very…very qualified candidate, Austin’s very own loudmouth, John Kelso.

First and foremost, I think that we can all agree that anyone wanting to designate themselves as a historical landmark opens themselves up to all the grief that comes their way.  But that is no new thing for Mr. Kelso, he’s been turning out pointless dribble and selling it as journalism for quite some time now.

Mr. Kelso’s latest story made me further question exactly what the AAS sees in him.  According to him, the Gods of real estate have unfairly frowned upon a dry cleaner who is having to relocate because - brace yourself - their South Congress Avenue rent is going up.  And in a related story, there’s not going to be a shortage of dry cleaners in downtown Austin.

Mr. Kelso covers the Washburn Town and County Cleaners, who are having to relocate at the end of the month after 31 years on South Congress because their rent is going from about 2,000 to about 10,000 a month.  Now I will admit, that is quite the hike in rent.  But at the same time, I’m sure the owner is charging a rate that someone is willing to pay.

And that is what real estate is suppose to be about, right?  Getting the most out of your investment?  Mr. Kelso’s tone seems to hint at that answer being no, that there is a greater social responsibility being ignored here.  Yet I submit that if that were the prevailing thought then Austin would still resemble its panoramic from the early nineteen hundreds and everyone who has flocked to Austin since would have no place to work or call their home.

So what exactly are we talking about here every time we hear the sad story of an Austin icon that has to up and move because they have been priced out of their neighborhood?  Gentrification is what we are talking about, or more specifically the theory that individual property value will increase as improvements and development around that property makes the area a more attractive location.

Bottom line…it happens.  I don’t expect anyone to like it - least of which those that find themselves priced out - but gentrification is a natural occurrence of a healthy local economy and an aggressive development plan, two characteristics that accurately describe Austin right now. 

So what is the real estate market in south Austin to do, Mr. Kelso?  Specifically, what is the owner of the property that Washburn Town and County Cleaners calls home to do?  Property values are up and they have an opportunity to increase their return on their investment, so how would you have them proceed?

Are they to shrug their shoulders and say, I know I could get more - a lot more - for this lease, but hey, you give me a discount on my laundry?  As touching as that sounds, I don’t think it would be fair to expect that from an investment holder.  Especially when you consider that the very same investment holder is also probably seeing their property taxes rise as the south Austin development keeps pushing the value of their real estate investment up and up.

Sure, it’s a bit of a shame that the brothers owned dry cleaning operation has to move because they can no longer afford to stay located where they are.  But dare I say, that’s life?

Some of you may hate me for this, perhaps even my very own partner in crime, but I dare.

Add One More To The List Of Fans For A UNT Law School

July 24th, 2008 by Jake Hatlin | Posted in Talking Policy | 2 Comments »

The University of North Texas in on board, the City of Dallas is on board, so are all those freshly rejected law school applicants.  And now you can add one more to the list of supporters for another public law school in Texas…Jake Hatlin.  Too bad my endorsement is worth less than a cup of coffee in this town.

I may not be able to seal the deal for a UNT law school, but this site does have a few readers so what I can do is subject you to the why, and tell you about what is in the works and of the last piece of the puzzle that needs to fall in place.

According to the Dallas Morning News, the metroplex is ready to go.  The UNT folks have been talking it up, and the city of Dallas is ready to put up as much as 16 million dollars to renovate a home and make a general investment in what will hopefully be the University of North Texas School of Law.  The only thing that needs to happen from here is that the Lege has to sign off on the idea.

Our esteemed lawmakers tried in 2007, and with the clock running out, Rep. Dan Branch attached the idea to another bill, which unfortunately fell victim to a technicality and ultimately did not make it across the finish line.  But that is why we have session every two years, so that we can pick up where momentum left off.  I have not personally heard of any specific bills to be filed (like anyone would tell me anything), but I would be surprised if the Dallas County Delegation didn’t find a way to get this put on the top of their priority list.

Now comes the sales pitch.  Texas desperately needs another law school, and the DFW metroplex desperately needs to be the host.  Consider that the last time Texas opened a public law school, Speaker Tom Craddick wasn’t even a member of the House.  Dare I say, we’re a little behind?  I dare.

It is also worth mentioning that nine out of ten law school graduates from Texas stay in the Lone Star State, yet they still come in well under our total number of bar admittances.  What this means is that under our current law school enrollment capacity, Texas is not meeting our own professional lawyer needs.  That could change for the better with another public law school.

There is a cost factor as well.  It doesn’t take a fool to notice that public law school is noticeably less expensive than private law school tuition.  Yet in Texas private law schools actually outnumber their public counterparts.  Affordable education…I’m a big fan.

And in this blogger’s opinion, DFW would be the perfect fit.  They are the largest metroplex in the nation to not have a public law school.  They have considerably less total law school seats than their Houston counterpart.  Per capita, DFW is lagging in the number of practicing attorneys, and what law student wouldn’t be better served in life from pub crawling up and down Lower Greenville?

My guess is that SMU Law and Texas Wesleyan are going to be a little skirmish about the idea of another law school going up in their back yard.  But both should rest assured in that there are plenty of qualified students wanting to go to law school in Texas to go around for everyone.  Besides, if another DFW law school really was against SMU Law’s best interests, then I doubt a proud Pony would be one of the lawmakers pushing for it. 

So Jake’s on board.  When the Lege gavels in and (hopefully) a UNT Law School bill is filed, show me where to sign up to testify in favor. 

Am I solidly behind the idea because it is sound public policy?  Yes, but don’t discount the possibility that there are some selfish motives at work here.  I just might have been one of the poor saps left holding nothing but a thick stack of law school rejection letters in my hand, wishing we had more seats to put butts in.      

Doing My Part To Fight The Good Fight

July 23rd, 2008 by Jake Hatlin | Posted in OGR On Other Blogs | 6 Comments »

My main man, Phillip Martin, has embarked upon an interesting crusade to end the horrid stereotypes that gives us bloggers a bad name, something that even I can get behind.  Mr. Martin lists the specific stereotypes that he feels holds us under a glass ceiling, and while I agree, I think he came up short on saying what is truly on our minds and which stereotypes most make us feel like second class citizens.

So, always the one to be there for my brethren, I am offering some insightful additions to the list of stereotypes that Mr. Martin produced.  In no particular order here are the other damning perceptions of your modern blogger….

• He’s a geek
• He hasn’t had a girlfriend in years
• The last girl he talked to on the telephone required a credit card number
• During high school he cut holes in his underwear so that they would tear easier
• Only the co-ed community service fraternity gave him a bid
• Upon graduation he realized that his chosen degree qualified him for practically nothing
• He now has an inflated sense of self purpose
• He really thinks he is making a difference
• He proudly refers to his blog as “journalistic work”
• He finds that his parents’ basement suits his living needs just fine
• He won’t go to a bar unless it has free wifi
• He drinks daiquiris and wine coolers
• He is on a first name basis with all the employees at his local, non-corporate coffee shop
• He dresses…well, refer back to number 1
• He desperately needs a tan
• For some reason he still thinks that facial hair is cool
• His idea of a target rich environment is a bloggers’ convention
• One day, he’ll take great pride in showing his son how to blog
• He refers to the “Glory Days” as when his parents finally got the internet
• He prefers his small paycheck because it would be wrong to make more than others

I’m with you, Phillip.  Guys like you and I can not stand for this brand of oppression anymore.  You organize the march and I’ll be there at your side, singing We Shall Overcome!

Actually, now that I think about it, many of these stereotypes do apply to me.  In that case, if other bloggers out there feel the same then perhaps we would be better served to get the Lege to pass a law making us a protected class of citizens, don’t you think?
 

Fixing Our Broken System Of Financial Aid

July 23rd, 2008 by Jake Hatlin | Posted in Talking Policy | 3 Comments »

I usually don’t find myself engrossed in the Houston Chronicle.  I mean no ill will toward the metropolitan paper, it’s just never really turned me on before.  However, when I came across this article on proposed new rules that could make college financial aid based more on merit and less on financial portfolio, I couldn’t put it down.

Here’s a little upfront information about me.  I have not, do not, and will never buy into this theory that we should punish people for being “rich”.  Sorry, Senator Obama, I read your book and all, but I’m still not on board. 

Basically I find punishing the “rich” through either proportionately higher taxes or by excluding them from opportunities to be both a disincentive for one to want to better themselves and also to be firmly against our nation’s bedrock principle that if you succeed where others couldn’t, then you have rightfully earned the fruits of your labor.

I have always viewed our state’s system of distributing financial aid as a gross injustice.  No where in my perfect world should financial aid (loans or grants) be granted based on who “needs” it instead of who deserves it.  In a nutshell, here’s why…everyone needs it.

Frankly I find it very presumptuous for the state to assume that just because parents can afford to pay for their child’s college education that they will.  I know of many accomplished students from my college days whose well to do parents opted not to cover their total education expenses.  At the same time, these same students had trouble obtaining their desired level of state financial aid because of their family’s income status.  So as you can see, they needed it, too.

But probably easier to relate to is the fact that the income thresholds we have worked with in the past have been extremely unfair to middle class working families.  Teachers, nurses, police officers, firefighters, they all work hard to put food on the table, they all do not have the capabilities to pay for their children’s higher ed needs, and yet for some unexplainable reason, the state considers them all to be in such position.

And the children of these middle income families who perform so well in high school, who meet every academic standard, who prove to be a worthy investment, are left with nothing but empty pockets and an unfair system that says, sorry, merit doesn’t matter here.

I, personally, find it hard to swallow every time we look a top 5 percent student in the eye and tell them that they can’t qualify for college grants because their police officer dad and their teacher mother make too much money.  That student then gets saddled with loans that they didn’t deserve.  And furthermore, we teach them to start to question exactly what are they working so hard for. 

Merit should matter more.  In fact, I think merit should be the only thing that matters.  According to the HC, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board is starting to think so as well, and I applaud them for considering new rules that will put less emphasis on a student’s income background and more emphasis on their net-worth to the classroom.

Chris Bell - Texas Senate Or Bust

July 22nd, 2008 by Jake Hatlin | Posted in Talking Policy | 2 Comments »

So Chris Bell has made it official, he’s in.  It’s now the Texas Senate or bust.  And I say that literally, because after a failed re-election campaign to the US Congress and a failed run for Governor, if Mr. “I Lost to Mr. 39 Percent” (sorry, I had to do it once) loses this one then it’s practically over for him.

I won’t be supporting him, but I do admire Mr. Bell’s courage to push all of his last remaining chips into the pot on, at best, a 50-50 shot.  If he wins, Mr. Bell keeps his name at the top of the possible statewide candidates list.  If he loses, likely no one will even recruit him to run for dog catcher.

I also agree with Mr. Bell in that this is not a step down.  A seat in the Texas Senate is a very important post to serve from.  If he were to win and hang around, he would find himself with far more constituents than if he remained a Congressman.  And if changing Texas policy is what he truly wants, then this would be a better position to do it from.  Senators write the laws, all the Governor does is sign on the dotted line.

Mr. Bell’s participation gives this SD 17 special election instant rock star status.  First, he has name ID where his collection of Republican opponents don’t.  Heck, even I can only name one of them off of the top of my head.  Second, he’s a lone democrat candidate meaning his best case scenario is an outright win and his worst case scenario is a heads up run-off in what would likely be a very low turnout December Election Day.

The Republican Party now needs to really get geared up for this race, as the democrats have put themselves in the best possible position to win.  It will still be an uphill battle in a district that had Mr. Bell 7.5 points behind Governor Perry in ‘06, but my guess is that the money and the troops are going to pour in for the democrat candidate.

This begs the question, are we as Republicans prepared to man the wall and defend what has been ours?  I think so, but frankly, I am not 100 percent sure. 

Either way, we’ll find out soon enough.

The Honor Roll - Show Me The Money Part III

July 21st, 2008 by Jake Hatlin | Posted in Election Commentary | No Comments »

The fun we’ve had looking at those who raised their opponents to death, those incumbents who have dropped the ball, and those races that one way or another were made to sound like more than they really were.  Anyone who knows me knows that I do thinks in threes, and with this being the last installment in this series there is no better way to conclude it than with the Honor Roll.  So first we’ll take a glance at the races where both sides are holding on to the fundraising ball, and then briefly recap those who can effectively call themselves Fundraising Giants.

Juan Garcia v Todd Hunter

Strait up, these guys turned in some power numbers, combining for over 700K in contributions for the period.  I think it is easy to say that this is shaping up to be the most expensive race of the season. The challenger, Todd Hunter, did well for himself with 300K raised, but if I were to spot one fault in the armor it would be the cash out.  Frankly, without going into detail Mr. Hunter spent a little bit more money for the period than I am comfortable with.

This race will be fun to watch, with both sides already lobbing bombs.  The district is “Republican”, but it is riding that 57-58 percent threshold that most pollsters are saying equates no longer a stronghold for the GOP.  Mr. Garcia has won in the Devil’s backyard before, but lets be real, Todd Hunter is not carrying near the baggage that Gene Seamen was.

Joe Heflin v Isaac Castro

Ok, combined 99K raised versus 700K raised is not nearly as sexy, but we are talking about West Texas here.  Both candidates put up near identical contributions raised for the period, and despite the power of incumbency, Joe Heflin is only a mere 24K ahead in cash on hand.  A number that the Republican machine will make up and then some if they smell blood in the water. 

This race is going to be interesting as well.  Everyone said that former Speaker Laney’s seat was destine to go R once he was done, but Heflin pulled off the upset of upsets to keep that from happening.  But, he did it with a lot of help from the former Speaker.  Question is, will Laney be as involved in this race this time around, or will he see if the 1 term member can stand on his own feet.

Tony Goolsby v Carol Kent

Chairman Goolsby has a lot of bullets in his gun, 403 thousand of them to be exact.  But his challenger, Carol Kent, is showing up front that she is not opposed to playing catchup, pulling in 165K of her own and ending the period with 122K in the bank.

Mr. Goolsby was suppose to lose last cycle, but he flat out out-worked his opponent on his way to a victory.  I don’t doubt the incumbent’s work ethic this time around, but the flap he is catching for coming down on those with ghost employee hiring history while having some of the same history of his own does create a threat.  My guess is that more democrat money is going to pour in and that the troops are going to hit the ground, meaning that Mr. Goolsby is going to have to hit it hard again.

Allen Vaught v Bill Keffer

Talk about neck and neck.  Mr. Vaught is showing 111K in the bank, and the challenger this time around, Bill Keffer, is showing slightly better footing at 117K.  But for all practical purposes, it’s a fundraising dead heat with both parties turning in impressive showings thus far.

It is no secret that had Bill Keffer worked this hard last time out that he would have held on to his seat and be working toward his 4th term in office.  So this time around Bill Keffer should be ok, right?  Not so fast.  He may have his head on strait this time, but now Mr. Vaught has the power of incumbency and a rising star status amongst his party that the democrats are going to throw the kitchen sink at to protect.  Vaught v Keffer round two is living up to the hype, and could be a less than 500 vote margin race.

Jim Murphy v Kristi Thibaut

Who had this race on their radar?  I will bet you that Jim Murphy didn’t, but likewise I will wager that he does now given that his opponent turned in 116K in total donations and just south of 100K in cash on hand.  Not to be outdone, though, Mr. Murphy pulled in 130K of his own and is showing 171K hanging around to play around with.

This is a rematch from 2006 when Murphy beat the challenging Thibaut by 14 points.  But don’t be so quick to write this one off.  Mr. Murphy finds his district surrounded by much of the opposition, usually meaning that you’re about to come under attack.  And Ms. Thibaut’s July report indicates that she’s in this race to be taken seriously.

Hubert Vo v Greg Meyers

Call this one the weak link on the Honor Roll, but to me it still has characteristics worth discussing.  Neither candidate raised an eye opening amount for the period, but in this case the challenger (Mr. Meyers) did out-raise the incumbent nearly 3 to 1.  To be fair to Mr. Vo, though, he is still holding on to the cash on hand advantage.

I suspect this race will be tighter than it was in ‘06, when Vo beat down the bumbling Mr. Heflin.  This race, too, is riding that threshold of it should be Republican but might not be in real life.  The real question at this point is how much is the slum lord status that Vo is holding on to going to hurt him come the fall.

Mark Homer v Kirby Hollingsworth

Talk about perplexing.  This is a solidly R district that suddenly becomes solidly D once voters get to the State Representative race.  Despite Republican statewides crushing their counterparts in ‘06, Mark Homer beat back Mr. Hollingsworth by 5,500 votes. 

But now they are back, and Mr. Hollingsworth is giving this rematch his all, raising 88K and keeping 86K of it around.  But despite his past success, Mr. Homer is in it to run hard also, posting fundraising numbers that has him very close to 200K cash on hand.  This one is probably a D victory, but who knows.  Stranger things have happened.

Individual Honor Roll

I would hate to punish someone by keeping them off the Honor Roll list just because their counterpart in the fall isn’t out there fundraising themselves, so in no particular order, here is my Individual Honor Roll.

1. John Zerwas - Freshman incumbent pulls in 92K in contributions without any major opposition in the fall.  Not bad for a newbie.
2. Patrick Rose - 285K raised for the period and over 800K cash on hand.  3rd term member might find himself in the million dollar club come next report.
3. Valinda Bolton - 120K raised?  I really didn’t think she had it in her.
4. Donna Howard - Ditto to her 161K raised.
5. Diana Maldonado - Her 139K raised has kept the democrat hopes alive in this usual strong Republican district.
6. Burt Solomons - Now up to 846K, which he will have to put in a Senate race once Senator Harris decides to turn in.
7. Ken Paxton - I was seriously surprised to see 440K cash on hand.  Not bad, Mr. Paxton.
8. Paula Pierson - 104K cash on hand is not bad for a freshman member of the minority party.
9. Chris Turner - His 240K raised brings 1 word to mind…damn.
10. Dan Branch - 603K in the bank is nice for a future higher run.  Lets hope he doesn’t have to spend too much of it this time around fighting off a no name opponent riding nothing but a prayer and a movement.
11. Joe Straus - Only two terms and already at 585K in the bank.  Quite impressive.
12. Ellen Cohen - Clearly she is distinguishing herself as the real fundraiser from this freshmen class.  Though there are those that would argue that she is a benefactor of the district she represents.
13. Joel Redmond - Hat tip to Reid for bringing this to my attention.  Had I been aware of this a week ago, Mr. Redmond’s fundraising number would have warranted me putting his Republican opponent on my wake up call list.

Hell Has Frozen Over

July 21st, 2008 by Jake Hatlin | Posted in Getting After The Left, OGR On Other Blogs | 7 Comments »

I’m not kidding.  The end of the world is upon us.  How do I know, you ask?  Simple, a liberal blogger has slammed the Austin American Statesman for being unfair to a democrat politician.

I don’t know if I should laugh or cry.  I’ll pass on both and instead say, Hey, BOR, welcome to our world.

Phillip Martin writes this post, in which he really comes down hard on the AAS because a writer covering their precious netroots liberal bloggers having nothing else better to do with their lives conference took a jab at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi by emphasizing that she is - brace yourself - a liberal.

How dare the AAS?  I mean, there’s taking the gloves off and then there’s pointing out that Speaker Pelosi bats from the left. 

Let me give Mr. Martin some advise…all these years and all the bias coverage, you’re going to have to come at me with more than this weak noise to convince me that the AAS has switched sides and now finds itself leaning toward the right.

How bad did the AAS get underneath Mr. Martin’s skin?  Check out this direct quote:

However, the article they ran as “reporting” in Sunday’s paper shouldn’t just offend me — it should offend all readers. It is, without a doubt, the single worst piece of “journalism” I’ve ever encountered in my hometown paper.

I really don’t mean Mr. Martin too much ill will, but the idea of a liberal blogger thinking that the AAS is unfairly sticking it to their party was way to funny to pass on.

So the media is no longer on the side of the left.  How ever will they win elections now?