Texas Dems Not Interested In Winning Ag. Comm. Race

AGRICULTURE COMMISSIONER (93.57% reporting)
Kinky Friedman...............80,890 (46.21%)
Jim Hogan...............94,124 (53.78%)

The man pictured at the left is Jim Hogan -- the choice of Texas Democrats as their nominee in the November election race for Agriculture Commissioner. Who is Jim Hogan? That's hard to know, because he hasn't campaigned and hasn't told anyone what his issues are. As near as I can tell, he's a right-wing fundamentalist. He admitted that the only reason he ran as a Democrat is because there were already five candidates in the GOP race for Ag Commissioner (and he didn't think he could beat five other Republicans).

Why did Texas Democrats vote for a right-wing fundamentalist, who didn't campaign and says he will not campaign in the general election either (not for himself or the Democratic ticket)? All I can figure is that a lot of Democratic Party regulars think it's more important to settle an old grudge they hold than to have a chance of winning this race in November.

Less than 1.5% of Texas' registered voters bothered to vote in the Democratic primary runoff. That's not unusual, and means that hardly anyone other than party regulars voted. And too many of them still harbor a grudge against Kinky Friedman for running as an Independent in the 2006 governor's race. They blame Kinky for their pitiful showing in that race -- ignoring the facts that Kinky drew as many Republican votes in that race as Democratic votes, and the Democratic candidate was an "empty suit" who couldn't have beaten Rick Perry if it had been a two-person race. And to satisfy that old grudge, they put a right-wing fundamentalist (who's not even a real Democrat) on the November ballot.

Kinky is a maverick, and he doesn't follow the party line. But he is a campaigner, and he was willing to campaign hard for not only himself, but the entire Democratic ticket (and he could have garnered many Independent votes for the ticket). But that wasn't good enough for the party regulars. They preferred a right-wing fundamentalist Republican in ill-fitting Democratic clothes -- a person not willing to campaign for the Democratic Party.

Frankly, I'm disgusted. I won't be able to support Hogan or vote for him in November, because I'm a progressive, and I never vote for right-wing fundamentalists -- even if they pose as Democrats. And by tossing in the towel in the Ag Commissioner race, I'm left to wonder just how serious Democrats are about winning any statewide race this year.

As I said in a post a couple of days ago, it looks like the state party (and its major candidates) are following the same old path to defeat as in the past -- by posing as slightly less right-wing candidates than the Republicans they are running against. They seem to think Texas voters will flock to the polls to vote for the lesser of two evils. But that hasn't worked in the past, and it's a sure road to defeat this year too.

I get daily e-mails from Wendy Davis, Leticia Van de Putte, and David Alameel. But they never tell me what progressive values they are willing to fight for. They just ask for money and assure me they are better somehow than their opponent. That's not good enough. I want to see some Democrats willing to fight for progressive values, and offer a real choice to the right-wingers of the GOP. And I think that's what many others want.

I'm going to vote a progressive ballot in November and I was hoping it would include many Democrats. Unfortunately, the Democrats with progressive roots seem to be running away from those roots. And frankly, that doesn't bode well for November.

A Tough Year For Warren Chisum

It's been a tough year for the Panhandle's far right-wing fundamentalist nut-job, Warren Chisum. For years now he has been representing the Texas Panhandle in the Texas House of Representatives, and there were those who said he had a lot of power in Austin. But it doesn't look like he swings as much weight there as he thought he did.

He started off the year by running to replace the sitting Speaker of the House, Joe Straus (R-SanAntonio). He said Straus was too moderate to serve a second term as House Speaker. He was evidently wrong about that, as it only took one ballot for Straus to be re-elected.

Then redistricting came around, and the population shift in Texas from rural to urban dictated that the West Texas/Panhandle would lose a state house seat. It became obvious early on that the lost seat would probably be Chisum's, and that turned out to be true. His district was melded into the district of Rep. Landtroop (R-Plainview).

Chisum still thought he could turn the bowl of lemons he had been handed into a pitcher of lemonade though. He decided he would take a state elected position. Michael Williams had resigned from the Texas Railroad Commission to run for the U.S. Senate (and now has changed his mind and is running for a newly created U.S. House seat). Chisum made it known that he wanted Williams' seat on the Railroad Commission (which controls oil and gas production in the state).

But Chisum wasn't as well liked in Austin as he thought. Governor Rick Perry passed him over for the Railroad Commission job, appointing instead the current chairman of the Public Utility Commission, Barry Smitherman. And as the incumbent, it is unlikely that Smitherman could be beat by Chisum in the next election.

But Chisum is nothing if not stubborn. He now says he will run for a different seat on the Railroad Commission -- the seat currently occupied by Elizabeth Ames Jones. Jones has said she will probably resign the seat to run for the U.S. Senate seat of retiring Kay Bailey Hutchison. The way Chisum's luck has been running, Jones will probably come to her senses and realize she stands no chance of being elected to that seante seat and decide to keep her seat on the Railroad Commission.

I hope so anyway. Texas would be better served if Warren Chisum didn't hold any elected office in the state. Jones may be bad, but Chisum would be even worse.

Right-Wing History - Beyond Weird

Right-wingers are fond of making up history as they need. Whether it is from ignorance of what actually happened or just plain old dishonesty doesn't matter. The effect is the same -- they feed people an inaccurate and untrue vision of history, especially American history, to back up their own ridiculous beliefs. For them, history is little more than propaganda.

The media had a lot of fun with Sarah Palin last week when she said Paul Revere warned the British with gunshots and the ringing of bells that they weren't going to take American's guns. Any school child knows she was a long way from the truth, but I honestly think Palin spoke from ignorance. She didn't know what the real story was, so she gave her own version of it.

But there are much more insidious right-wingers out there spouting false history -- and they are fooling people (because they are telling them what they wish was true -- not what is true). One of the worst of these is David Barton (pictured), who claims to be a historian. Barton has regularly misused history to support his fringe right-wing christian views. He claims that Benjamin Franklin (and other founders) would have opposed "net neutrality" (although the idea of an internet was a couple of hundred years away). He also says the United States broke away from England because England supported slavery (completely ignoring the fact that the English outlawed slavery long before America did).

But a few days ago he may have come up with his most outrageous re-writing of American history yet. He now claims that the Founding Fathers debated the teaching of creationism versus evolution, and came down on the side of creationism. Here is his comment on the christian Daystar network:

"The founding fathers…already had the entire debate on creation/evolution…and you've got Thomas Paine, the least religious of the founding fathers, saying you got to teach creation science in the public school classroom, the scientific method demands it!"


He completely ignores the fact that Charles Darwin was not even born until 1809, did not publish On The Origin Of Species until 1859, and did not publish The Descent Of Man until 1871. He doesn't explain how the Founding Fathers could have known about and debated evolution decades before the idea was even presented.

And this is the "historian" lauded by many on the right like Rep. Joe Barton. Mike Huckabee even said that Americans (including children) should be forced at gunpoint to listen to Barton's version of history. But since facts are not important in right-wing politics and economics, I guess there's no reason to assume they should be important in their version of history either.

Sanity On The Right-Wing ? Finally !

I am a leftist -- an unabashed liberal, pinko, progressive, tree-hugging, union-loving, peace and love socialist. I am not ashamed of that and I make no apology for it. I just believe the left offers the most common-sense solutions to the problems that America and the world face.

But it may surprise some of my readers to know that I also believe there is a place in politics for old-fashioned conservative thought and philosophy. Now I'm not talking about the hatred, racism and theism that so often passes for conservatism nowdays. I'm talking about the type of intelligent conservatism offered by men like Barry Goldwater (pictured), William F. Buckley and to some extent even Ronald Reagan.

These men were as conservative as I am liberal, but they were not stupid about it. They new how to discuss and debate, and when the time came, they knew how to compromise. Liberal bills were made better by their participation, and some bills they supported were made better because they allowed liberal participation. They didn't hate their opponents, but worked with them for the good of the country (a country loved by both the right and left).

As much as I might hate to admit it sometimes, neither the right nor the left has a corner on the truth. I may believe the left is more often correct, but the country benefits from robust intelligent debate by both conservatives and liberals.

But the modern "conservative" movement has been hijacked by the teabaggers, racists and religious fundies. The old conservative ideas have been tossed out the window and compromise is viewed as surrender. They must have their way, and to get it they will lie, cheat, pander to racism and make hatred a value. They put the Bible ahead of the Constitution and would like nothing more than to establish a theistic dictatorship. And they see nothing wrong with using military power to spread their beliefs.

Instead of conservative thinkers, they have new leaders and idols like Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter and Michael Savage. They hate compromise and demonize their opponents. Tolerance is eschewed and has been replaced by racism and an insane vitriolic hatred. I was about to believe that true and useful conservative thought was dead.

But out of the midst of the hatred, there has emerged a conservative voice of sanity. Charles Johnson writes the conservative blog Little Green Footballs. A few days ago, he announced that he could no longer go along with the haters and lunatics who've taken over the American conservative movement. He said they were driving conservatism off a cliff, and he would not follow them off that cliff. He gives 10 reasons for his parting ways with the right-wingers:

1. Support for fascists, both in America (see: Pat Buchanan, Robert Stacy McCain, etc.) and in Europe (see: Vlaams Belang, BNP, SIOE, Pat Buchanan, etc.)

2. Support for bigotry, hatred, and white supremacism (see: Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter, Robert Stacy McCain, Lew Rockwell, etc.)

3. Support for throwing women back into the Dark Ages, and general religious fanaticism (see: Operation Rescue, anti-abortion groups, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Tony Perkins, the entire religious right, etc.)

4. Support for anti-science bad craziness (see: creationism, climate change denialism, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, James Inhofe, etc.)

5. Support for homophobic bigotry (see: Sarah Palin, Dobson, the entire religious right, etc.)

6. Support for anti-government lunacy (see: tea parties, militias, Fox News, Glenn Beck, etc.)

7. Support for conspiracy theories and hate speech (see: Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Birthers, creationists, climate deniers, etc.)

8. A right-wing blogosphere that is almost universally dominated by raging hate speech (see: Hot Air, Free Republic, Ace of Spades, etc.)

9. Anti-Islamic bigotry that goes far beyond simply criticizing radical Islam, into support for fascism, violence, and genocide (see: Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, etc.)

10. Hatred for President Obama that goes far beyond simply criticizing his policies, into racism, hate speech, and bizarre conspiracy theories (see: witch doctor pictures, tea parties, Birthers, Michelle Malkin, Fox News, World Net Daily, Newsmax, and every other right wing source)

I welcome him back to the world of sanity. In fact, I am so impressed by his honesty that I have added LGF to my blogroll. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure I'll disagree with LGF on many, if not most things. But where there is a willingness to abandon hate and engage in a truthful debate, there is hope.

I hope more on the right come to their senses, and once again embrace the old conservative values and beliefs. The country could use some honest debate devoid of racism, lying, intolerance and hatred.

Another Racist Billboard

I thought the comments made about the president during Bill Clinton's term were pretty bad, and at times some of the comments made about George Bush were probably over-the-top too. But they both pale in comparison to the racist lies and accusations being hurled at President Obama.

It's as if having an African-American president has changed the rules of decency, and allows right-wing fundamentalists to spew forth their inner hatred without any consideration of right and wrong. There isn't even any consideration of whether a statement is true or not anymore. Even a lie or racist statement is OK as long as it is anti-Obama.

Consider the above billboard put up by a businessman in Wheat Ridge, Colorado. I don't think I've ever seen caricatures of an African-American that were more racist than the ones on that billboard. What makes these people think it's appropriate to flaunt their racism?

As for the jihadist thing, I guess they think the bigger the lie the better. Everyone with even a passing attachment to the real world, knows that Obama was born in the United States and raised as a christian. To deny either fact is to show a complete disregard for the truth.

But perhaps the worst thing on the billboard is the charge that President Obama is somehow responsible for the shootings at Fort Hood. I think that would be too sick a statement for even most Republicans to stomach (at least I hope so).

The person responsible for this billboard tried to justify it by saying the words "We are a christian nation" appear in the Constitution. Even if these words were in that revered document (and they are certainly not), how would that justify this racist lie-filled billboard?

Is this what christianity has devolved into? If Jesus really did live, would he have approved of the lying and the racism? This doesn't sound much like the christian religion I was raised in, but it is the religion that the right-wing theists would like to force on all Americans.

Frankly, I am appalled!

Racism At The "Values Voter Summit"

I want to thank the good folks at the excellent blog Mark of the Beast for the heads-up on this bit of right-wing sleaze. The Family Research Council just held their Values Voter Conference from September 12th thru the 14th in Washington, D.C. I know this will shock many of you (not!), but it looks like racism is alive and well among the "christian" right-wing.

One of the more popular booths at the conference was run by Bob DeMoss and Mark Whitlock. Both have been connected to Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council for years. These two "good 0le boys" from Tennessee were selling Obama Waffles in their booth.

They had their booth open for a day and a half of the three day conference, and sold 400 boxes of the waffles, before the Family Research Council realized they were getting some bad publicity from the racist booth and asked them to close it down.

DeMoss and Whitlock claimed their "free speech" was being curbed and claimed their product wasn't racist. DeMoss said, "I understand that it's not for everyone. But we don't have a racist bone in our bodies. This is humor, not hate." But the waffle box itself shows this to be an outrageous lie. The box contained:

- an image on the flap depicting Obama in a Muslim headdress with the copy "Point box toward Mecca for tastier waffles."

- a caricature of Rev. Jeremiah Wright as a missing person on the side of the box, with copy, "Popular sayings: 'God d*** America' and Made in the US of KKA."

- the recipe for "Barack Belgium Beauties" reads, "Environmentally conscious consumers should pay two ozone-offset carbon credits to Al Gore's GreenWorld fund."

- a caricature of Michelle Obama saying, "For the first time in my adult life I'm proud of an American waffle."

- an attempt at a rap song, "Barry's Bling Bling Waffle Ring recipe rap"
"Yo, B-rock here droppin' waffle knowledge

Spellin' it out, 'cause I graduated college

Some say I waffle so fast, Barry's causin' whiplash

Just doin' my part, made wafflin' a fine art

For a waffle wit style, like Chicago's Magnificent Mile

Spray whipped cream around the edge

Shake it first like Sister Sledge

Then say wit me, I can be as waffly as I wanna be!

(That goes out to my Ludacris posse)"

And in an attempt to offend everyone,

- a caricature of Obama in a sombrero promoting "Open Border Fiesta Waffles," saying, "The greatest danger of all is to allow walls to divide us. It's time we opened our borders and our wallets to all who desire a taste of freedom. So put out the welcome mat and enjoy this multicultural celebration." And, "While waiting for these zesty treats to invade your home, why not learn a foreign language? Recommended serving: 4 or more illegal aliens."

Are these really the values promoted by the "christian" right-wing? How could anyone get these kind of racist values from the teachings of Jesus?

Right-Wing Fundies Oppose Bullying Ban

Most people think bullying in our schools is a bad thing, and something should be done to eliminate it whenever possible. After all, a child that is constantly bullied in school can suffer psychological damage that will affect him (or her) for the rest of their life. It's also been learned that most school shooters were acting out of revenge for being bullied. That's why I find this story so troubling.

The North Carolina legislature decided they needed to do something about school bullying. After a year of wrangling over the issue, they finally agreed on a plan that would pass both the House and Senate. It looked like something would finally be done.

But that's before the "conservative christians" stepped in. These right-wing fundie hate-mongers are urging their followers to put pressure on legislators to kill the bill before it can be voted into law. Why would they do this? To further their own hate-mongering.

You see, the bill listed gays and lesbians among those who are commonly bullied in school (a fact that cannot be denied). But that upset the fundies. It is part of their religious belief to discriminate against homosexuals, so obviously, it must be OK to bully gay and lesbian youngsters.

Sadly, these religious bigots don't realize how evil this makes them look. Why can't they just agree that bullying is wrong, even when you don't like the person being bullied? Would Jesus really approve of bullying gay and lesbian children?

How can these nuts call themselves christians?