As someone who has had the experience of being on the receiving end of this email, as well as having had people ask me about it, I’m glad the Texas Democratic Party is getting some press coverage of this story:

An e-mail circulating throughout Texas and apparently targeting supporters of Democrat Barack Obama falsely warns voters that casting a straight-ticket Democratic ballot won’t register a vote for Obama.

Democratic leaders are crying foul. First, it’s not true, they say.

Second, they worry it could cause Texans using eSlate electronic voting machines to inadvertently cancel out their presidential preference or make people so confused they decide not to cast a straight-party ballot at all, potentially eliminating votes for Democratic candidates in state and county races.

“For those who normally vote ‘Straight Democratic’, please pay close attention!!!!!” states the e-mail, obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press.

“I was informed this weekend by a group of Obama volunteers that when voting for the presidential candidate this November, you have to make sure you punch Barack’s name first, then proceed to punch ‘Straight Democratic’ or else the vote for the president won’t count,” the e-mail says.

Quite the opposite, says Texas Democratic Party spokesman Hector Nieto.

With eSlate, punching the button for presidential candidate Obama in addition to punching the straight-ticket button will actually cancel the Obama vote, Nieto said. Other individual candidates chosen also would be “deselected” on such a straight-ticket ballot, he said.

State party officials have posted a warning message on their Web site and encourage straight-party voting as a way to ensure Obama — and other Democrats on the ballot — get a vote.

Harris County Democratic Chairman Gerry Birnberg sent out a warning e-mail of his own. Harris County uses eSlate equipment and includes Houston, the state’s largest and generally Democratic city.

“THIS IS FALSE INFORMATION probably initiated by Republican dirty tricksters, but now being spread by well-meaning Barack Obama supporters,” Birnberg’s e-mail says.

If you are, as we are, a fan of the work of this longtime Democratic strategist, then this interview is a must-read. A great deal of it is dedicated to the 2002 elections and the “Dream Ticket.” In fact, moreso than anything, Kelly’s interview probably demystifies a lot of things about that election cycle, such as the ever-present question, “how did Tony Sanchez decide to run for Governor?”

In honor of that, we thought we’d also share the top five best rumors of all time (all untrue, but all funny) that we’ve heard over the years about how the “Dream Ticket” of 2002 was formed:

5. Tony Sanchez begged John Sharp to let him be on the ticket, and promised millions in his own money to help Democrats. Sanchez wept when Sharp told him no, he had to ask Cisneros first. [False; Sanchez was, at first, unwilling to run.]

4. John Sharp and Kelly Fero didn’t really come up with the Dream Ticket. It was all former TDP Chair Molly Beth Malcom, but she let Sharp take credit for it. [False; read the interview]

3. John Sharp and Tony Sanchez conceived of the “Dream Team” while deep sea fishing off the coast of the gulf of Mexico. [Again, not true. Sanchez wasn't even the first choice. Heard this rumor via email in 2002.]

2. Bill Clinton wanted to make Henry Cisneros governor of Texas, so he called Gary Mauro to ask him to help do that. Mauro enlisted the help of Sharp, who was feuding with Cisneros at the time and mad at Clinton and instead asked Sanchez to run. [Another wild one. This one was picked up at a party in Austin in 2006, and is untrue, but entertaining.]

1. John Sharp and Tony Sanchez were playing poker at a top-secret resort in West Texas known only to the super rich. Sharp and Sanchez were the last two left in a game when everyone else folded. Sanzhez ran out of cash and bet that if Sharp won the hand he’d run for governor. Sharp threw in a Rolex given to him by Bob Bullock and said, “Game on, Man.” Sharp had a full house, but Sanchez had a straight flush, and the rest is history. [Totally untrue. I heard this one in a hospitality suite during the 2004 TDP convention.]

According to voting records, it would appear Armstrong did not register to vote until 2006, unless he was registered in another state.

Tags: Lance+Armstrong

Technorati Tags Lance Armstrong

Of course, the media proclaims to have no clue about Armstrong’s political party affiliation. Evidently, nobody in the MSM realizes they can just call the elections office of the county in which Armstrong is registered to vote and simply ask them to fax his voting history, which would show if he’d voted in a primary election.

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’d like to see Lance Armstrong run for Governor or U.S. Senate about as much as I’d like to see the Olsen Twins make another direct-to-video movie. In other words, he’s nowhere in my top 100 list of future Texas political candidates–from either party.

It’s not that he’s not a hero to millions or an instant vote-getter–I’m sure those things are true.

The reason I don’t want to see Lance Armstrong run for office is because he has no experience doing anything except being a sports figure and with his recent proposition campaign.

All too often, the media puts emphasis on figures like Armstrong because they adopt a single-issue, end up waging a public campaign for it like Armstrong did for cancer research, and being successful. That, however, doesn’t make someone ready to assume the mantle of public office–at least not at the high levels like U.S. Senate or Texas Governor.

Personally, I’d say that if Lance Armstrong did want to run for one of those offices, given his previous background (save the campaign this fall) is totally unrelated to government in general, he should start small. Perhaps a run for Austin City Council, Mayor of Austin, or even State Representative would be more suited, and would give him the kind of political credibility he needs to run for something like Governor or Senator. With very few exceptions, Texas’ greatest governors and senators have all had some type of government experience before they sought–and won–those offices. LBJ, Ann Richards, and Lloyd Bentsen all had experience in lower-levels of government before running for big jobs. Although the idea of an athlete or movie star with worldwide name recognition running for office wasn’t exactly as likely as it is these days, voters then and now prefer someone with experience when it comes to the state’s top jobs.

So (provided Mr. Armstrong is, of course, a Democrat), I’d like to see him wage a State Representative campaign, provided he lives in a district now held by a Republican, and serve a couple of terms in the legislature. Once he’s paid his dues and proven himself, then we can talk about Governor or Senator or whatever. But, with the complex problems facing our nation and state today, we need leaders with a tad more government experience than Mr. Armstrong. Winning the Tour De France is a nice accomplishment (even seven times over), but it’s not really going to help when it comes to making public policy.

Tags: Lance+Armstrong

Technorati Tags Lance Armstrong

I was working in the newspaper business at the time. Watching returns come in from across the state took on an other-worldly atmosphere as Democrat after Democrat–from the statewides on down–fell to Republican candidates.

It was a bloodbath. It was the night the doors were infamously blown off the Texas Legislature, and a swarm of corrupt, religious-right influenced, anti-consumer Republicans swarmed in like a plague of locusts.

The statewide Democratic ticket’s theme that year was, “A New Day For Texas.” It was a new day all right; it just wasn’t the new day we thought it would be.

It was, in truth, the day that almost destroyed Texas. It wasn’t a tornado or an earthquake–or any natural disaster in the literal sense–but the damage it did to Texas was just as bad.

Without the disaster that was November 5, 2002, there would have been no mid-decade redistricting debacle, the bogus concept of tort reform would not have locked millions of Texans from the courthouses, thousands of Texas children would not have been kicked off their health insurance, and more.

In five short years, Republicans came damned close to destroying a state government that took generations to build and refine.

Today, Democrats are poised to return to the top. Tom DeLay is indicted and all but gone from the political scene. Many of the architects of the 2002 GOP takeover of state government are discredited, defeated, out of the game, or–like House Speaker Tom Craddick–on the skeds.

The last two election cycles have shown that Texans have realized that Republicans care more about special interests, the religious right, and their wealthy donors than they do about average Texans.

Although it may not yet show in statewide results, it will. In 2008, Texans will likely send State Rep. Rick Noriega to the United States Senate, beginning at long last the final stages of the purging of the corrupt Bush-Perry-DeLay-Craddick era in Texas government.

Today, when students in political science classes read about the “worst” times in our state’s political history, they read about Governor Jim Ferguson’s impeachment or the Sharpstown scandal.

The next generation of Texans will learn a new chapter in Texas Government. Perhaps textbook authors will call it the “Republican Revival & Decline.” Whatever they call it, its clear that the era that will form this new chapter is about to come to a close, with a Democratic resurgence.

Proposition 1

First, let’s take a look at the language on the ballot:

The constitutional amendment providing for the continuation of the constitutional appropriation for facilities and other capital items at Angelo State University on a change in the governance of the university.

Essentially, this is an amendment that allows certain constitutionally dedicated funds dedicated to Angelo State University to “follow” the university as it transfers from the Texas State University System to the Texas Tech University System.

Capitol Annex Recommends: A “Yes” Vote On Proposition 1.

Although we recommend a “yes” vote to ensure that funding to Angelo State is uninterrupted, we caution voters and Legislators that the continued move among state universities to ally themselves with one or more major university systems should be carefully examined. While formerly independent universities like Angelo State, Texas A&M University-Commerce, and other institutions benefit financially and politically from affiliations with major systems such as A&M, UT, UNT, and Texas Tech, we believe–in the long run–smaller schools in non-urban areas which were formerly independent institutions will suffer. As higher education funding continues to shrink and tuition continues to climb, the trend among major university systems will be to cut many degree programs from “satellite” campuses while preserving their flagship institutions. An interim study on the structure of the public higher education system in Texas is needed, and Capitol Annex urges legislators to take this step before 2009.

Proposition 2

First, the language you’ll see on the ballot:

The constitutional amendment providing for the issuance of $500 million in general obligation bonds to finance educational loans to students and authorizing bond enhancement agreements with respect to general obligation bonds issued for that purpose.

Capitol Annex Recommends: A “Yes” Vote On Proposition 2.

This constitutional amendment provides additional funding for the Hinson-Hazelwood College Student Loan Program. General obligation bonds issued under the auspice of this program, including these bonds, do not necessarily represent “debt” incurred by Texas and its taxpayers, but rather debt to be paid back by students as loan repayments. The sale of such general obligation bonds allows Texas to generate student loan funds while obtaining those funds at the lowest possible cost by using the state’s credit rating and not drawing directly upon state funds.

We do, however, caution legislators and voters that this is no quick fix for the problem of making higher education affordable in Texas. We continue to strongly support tuition re-regulation at all public institutions of higher education and further advocate a program such as that proposed by former Texas Comptroller John Sharp in 2002, which would provide that many Texas students graduating college with a “B” average and better the opportunity to attend college at no cost. Finally, the state should seriously consider a state-level law to mandate a higher minimum wage for working Texans so that families can earn more and thus save more to send their children to college.

Proposition 3

First, the text as it will be on the ballot:

The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide that the maximum appraised value of a residence homestead for ad valorem taxation is limited to the lesser of the most recent market value of the residence homestead as determined by the appraisal entity or 110 percent, or a greater percentage, of the appraised value of the residence homestead for the preceding tax year.

Capitol Annex Recommends: A “No” Vote On Proposition 3.

Capitol Annex has long been skeptical of the concepts of “property tax reform” and “appraisal reform” under our present tax system.

This amendment in particular is unnecessary as appraisal districts in most counties seeing rapid growth already perform annual appraisals, and the amendment has no effect on increases in these districts. Designed to protect homeowners from 20 and 30 percent increases allowable under current law, the amendment would, again, have no effect on appraisal increases because such sizable increases are highly uncommon in districts which do not appraise property every year. The amendment, in reality, would also shift tax burden on other taxpayers, including homeowners whose values are not rising rapidly.

Amendment 4

The language is as follows:

The constitutional amendment authorizing the issuance of up to $1 billion in bonds payable from the general revenues of the state for maintenance, improvement, repair, and construction projects and for the purchase of needed equipment.

Capitol Annex Recommends: Capitol Annex Takes No Position On Proposition 4.

Many of the causes for which Proposition 4 will but the state into debt for are, indeed, worthy causes: courthouse renovation, mental health facility renovation, and other general infrastructure. However, this proposition would also result in increased funding for prison spending. This, we believe, is not a worthy use of taxpayer dollars. Not only are Texas’ existing prisons poorly managed, but, before building more prison beds to be filled by “hanging judges,” serious reform of the probation and parole systems in this state must be undertaken. Further, as many prison beds are filled with non-violent drug offenders, the state should take more steps to fund rehabilitative care as opposed to simple incarceration for narcotics offenders.

For months now, rumors have swirled around the capital that operatives of Dr. James Leininger were recruiting primary opponents for House voucher opponents, specifically Carter Casteel, Charlie Geren, Delwin Jones, Roy Blake and Tommy Merritt.

However, on January 10th of this year, Dr. Leininger appeared on a panel about school vouchers at a Texas Public Policy Foundation event in Austin.

When quizzed by reporters afterwards, Dr. Leininger seemed to distance himself from efforts to unseat House Republicans. He told Associated Press, “For 15 years I’ve tried to support people who support school choice and I guess that means opposing people, in a sense, that are against school choice. I’ll focus more on open seats, it’s hard to beat incumbents, is a lot more productive to focus on open seats and hopefully protect incumbents that believe the way you believe, and oppose people that don’t believe what you believe”

Nevertheless, a newly formed General Purpose PAC appears to be the vehicle for organizing the challenge and promoting pro-voucher Republican candidates.

This PAC is evidently the Texas Republican Legislative Campaign Committee, which I discovered while looking up, via the Texas Ethics Commission website, recent contributions of Leininger. Turns out he gave the PAC a cool $50,000.

The group had expenditures to Austin Attorney Edward Shack, the attorney who assisted the Texas Association of Business in 2002, among others. Other payees were Anthem Media, a $20,000 retainer on a consulting fee, and Keep Texas Strong, which got $15,000. Anthem is affiliated with several campaigns, including Ed Bryant’s senate campaign, and also consulted for Pete Sessions during the last cycle.

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports that Rick Perry will stump for State Rep. Kent Grusendorf at an upcoming campaign event, along with House Speaker Tom Craddick and Lt. Governor David Dewhurst, in his race against Arlington school board President Diane Patrick for the March 7 GOP Primary.

Grusendorf (R-Arlington), is, of course, chairman of the House Public Education Committee (aka the The GOP Majority Will Shove Vouchers Down Your Throat” committee) and is  seeking an 11th term in the House.

Patrick will reportedly give him his toughest challenge since he won the seat in 1986.

The Star Telegram notes:

But aides to the GOP leaders downplayed any notion that their visit to Arlington, scheduled for Feb. 16, suggests that the state’s Republican leadership is worried that the veteran lawmaker is in serious trouble.

“Governor Perry believes that Chairman Grusendorf has been a passionate advocate for improving the education of Texas children for many years now,” said spokesman Robert Black. “He believes that the folks in [Grusendorf's] district are proud of his passion, enthusiasm and experience.”

As chairman of the education committee, Grusendorf , 66, was in the hot seat for much of the past two years as the Legislature grappled unsuccessfully for a solution to the state’s school finance system, which was ruled unconstitutional by the Texas Supreme Court. During two regular sessions and three special sessions, Grusendorf was unable to muster enough support to enact his plan or any other.

Patrick served on the AISD school board from 1981 until 1992 and served on the State Board of Education from 1992 until 1996.