Was The Filibuster Rick Perry's Waterloo?

The filibuster conducted on the floor of the Texas Senate last night by Wendy Davis was something truly amazing to behold. Not only was it quite impressive that anyone could accomplish such a feat under the constraints, but it was also educational on not only the inner workings of filibusters, but also on how the Texas Senate functions.

I, like many, tuned in through a live feed offered via the Texas Tribune's YouTube channel. It seemed that Wendy Davis was going to be successful with her marathon filibuster, then with two hours left, partisanship reared its ugly head. Another Senator, Donna Campbell, called a point of order for Wendy Davis straying off-topic. Senator Davis was making a point on how the sonogram law passed by the Texas legislature, along with SB 5, will add only more constraints onto Texas women. Dewhurst, presiding over the Senate and all-too-willing to find a way to kill the filibuster, sustained Campbell's point of order.

Needless to say, I thought those two actions were a shameless display of partisan politics. First, as other senators noted, mentioning a sonogram law that affects abortions in relation to a discussion about a current abortion bill, logically makes sense and is definitely germane. If not for the efforts of Senator Watson, this would have been Davis' third strike and the filibuster dead with it. The second strike was Davis receiving aid in attaching a back brace, and the first was for mentioning Roe v Wade during the earlier portion of the filibuster. Again, the latter, like the third strike was definitely related to the discussion, but Dewhurst abused his power and used a very subjective definition of germane to try to quell the filibuster. As we all know, it essentially launched a second filibuster via Senators West and Watson and SB 5 died, well at least for a day.

As has already been mentioned on this blog, the devotion of Republicans to these social issues, when there are other issues such as the transportation bill to tackle, is only holding the party back. A presidential election is still fresh in all of our minds where the zealous pursuit of these social issues essentially doomed our party, alienating moderates, women, and minorities. Dewhurst's blatant, shameful partisanship and abuse of power will not help the Republican Party, as many from not only around the state, but around the country took notice.

So why was the abortion bill even on the docket for the special session? Especially when there were other bills that required work? Well Governor Perry insisted on it. He picked a fight and he lost, and ironically, made a celebrity out of Wendy Davis in the process. Any doubts of her candidacy for the next gubernatorial election are eliminated now.

The battle for SB 5 serves as a microcosm of the issues currently plaguing the Republican Party. This focus on abortion is a purely hypocritical stance. We argue against big government, but then create a sonogram law to intrude on rights of Texans and an even more draconian abortion law, SB 5 to take that further by eliminating choices completely. We say we are pro-business here in Texas, but have no qualms in attempting to pass SB 5 which would have definitely closed 37 of the state's 42 abortion clinics. Closing businesses through legislation is not good for business. Not to mention, we are so mixed up with these social issues, we do not even know when to apply our logic. We use the argument when defending the second amendment that, if you ban guns, only outlaws will have them. This implies that people will continue to use guns regardless of the law. However when fighting against abortion, we think that by banning abortions, they will all the sudden stop, despite the massive historical precedent showing that is not true.

Essentially, we are for small government, except for when we are not and we are pro-business except for when we are not, and we made a mockery of the Texas Senate in the process. This defeat of epic proportions lies with Governor Perry. I think, at least in regards to his influence in the state, it may be his Waterloo. Even if SB 5 passes in one form or another during the second special session, it will be a Pyrrhic Victory, an Alamo. The national focus is now on Texas and instead of making inroads in luring women back to the Republican party, we have alienated them further with this zealous and misguided conviction to social issues, which at the end of the day does not help in fixing budgetary requirements, ailing infrastructure, or keeping government small. Pushing this social agenda one too many times has finally backfired, as Democrats and Texas women now have a strong candidate to rally around in Wendy Davis.

It is best to close with a quote from our great governor today (via Dallas Morning News):

Texans value life and want to protect women and the unborn

We value life, except for when we don't. Things were going so well for this state when the Republican Party just cared about doing business. Why don't we just get back to that?

References:

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2013/06/wendy-davis-begins-filibuster-to-stop-omnibus-abortion-bill.html/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Q8Hr0O20LY
http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/wendy-davis-senate-bill-5-filibuster-second-special-session-texas-legislature-213200601.html
http://themiddlethirty.blogspot.com/2012/08/has-republican-party-become-abortion.html
http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20130626-editorial-lets-avoid-a-rerun-of-texas-special-
session.ece
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mbvd/texas-senator-filibusters-against-abortion-bill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_united_states
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/wendy-davis-rick-perry_n_3506917.html
http://themiddlethirty.blogspot.com/2013/06/lou-dobbs-comments-illustrate-just-how.html
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2013/06/gov-rick-perry-to-push-abortion-regulations-again-in-special-session-starting-next-week.html/
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2013/0626/Texas-to-execute-woman-Capital-punishment-No.-500

What Good Is the Justice Department?

Last month, the Justice Department made headlines by seizing the phone records of AP reporters, drawing the ire from free speech advocates and news agencies world wide. The move in itself is concerning and the motive is yet to be seen. But the question to ask is, does the Justice Department have anything else to do? The Justice Department's raid on the AP brings into question all of their recent behavior, which is just as dubious. Most recently you will hear of their failed battle against the morning after pill, which as we can see was yet another fruitless endeavor and certainly does not help the case in proving their worth.

These recent actions require every citizen to ask, what good is the Justice Department? Shouldn't this entity be the one going toe-to-toe with criminal organizations, powerful trusts, industry insiders, and any other entity that is too powerful for the regional powers-at-be to handle? Well an even further study of their efforts will show you that the Justice Department seems to be only concerned about the little fish. Their most infamous headline in 2012 was their handling of the Aaron Swartz case, for instance.

Swartz, the internet phenom whose efforts help lay the groundwork for many websites such as Reddit, committed suicide over what many see as a heavy-handed approach by the Justice Department in prosecuting him. Swartz was charged with breaking into an internet cabinet and downloading millions of JSTOR articles. Despite the fact that JSTOR did not want to press charges and by the Justice Department's own admission that Swartz did not aim to financially gain from downloading the articles, they pressed forward with an absurdly lopsided prosecution which could have resulted in Swartz serving 35 years through using an outdated, cold-war era statute, CFAA.

More concerning was the fact that, this was not the first suicide on the hands of Stephen Heymann, the federal prosecutor. The question isn't what Swartz did was right or wrong, it is was the amount of emphasis our Federal Government put on the case necessary? There are countless heinous crimes happening in America every day, and they throw their weight behind prosecuting an internet activist, downloading academic articles just to make a statement? This was just a little fish and it is clear the Justice Department was making an example out of Swartz. What are some big fish, you ask?

Senator Elizabeth Warren has been quite open about her disdain of the banks since the 2008 fiscal collapse, questioning why drug dealers in America get hard time, yet bankers who break the law with impunity get nothing? Regardless of your opinion of the questionable legality of Wall Street's actions leading up to The Fiscal Collapse, our Justice Department did not even bother with an investigation. Furthermore, there is a case that exemplifies the Justice Department's inaction, one that is much more black and white: the HSBC money laundering case. HSBC broke the law, plain and simple. Yet, our government took the easy way out by just slapping them with a fine. Not to mention, HSBC was helping to bankroll the drug cartels, so it just goes to show that while using and selling drugs in America is against the law, apparently being a front for a drug cartel's operations to provide drugs, is perfectly fine.

To add insult to injury, Eric Holder, our stalwart Attorney General, bemoaned the fact that since HSBC's presence in our markets and economy is so large, that pressing criminal charges upon them might be bad for the economy. So here we have the Attorney General of the United States, afraid to take an enterprise guilty of criminal activity to court...for what might happen with the economy? Holder not only admitted that the Justice Department will not go after hard targets, but that any entity with enough financial presence is immune to our laws.

Essentially, we have an attorney general that is either too scared, apathetic, or just profoundly lazy to go after any big fish in America. Mind you, that goes against the very reason why the Justice Department was created. What happened to the Justice Department of old, going up against the likes of Standard Oil or Al Capone? Or how about not worrying about the economic implications of taking an industry giant like Microsoft to court in 1999 for anti-trust violations?  Even more recently we have the Justice Department settling with British Petroleum, in which BP did accept charges. So we can go after Standard Oil, Microsoft, and British Petroleum but not HSBC?

It seems like, perhaps the Justice Department is just too busy of late. With profoundly important cases such as the attempted forfeiture of Motel Caswell, who would have the time? In this case, the Justice Department argued that the sheer amount of crime that took place upon the motel's property was grounds to seize it. Well, a federal judge didn't buy that argument after the motel's lawyers proved that the respective level of crime occurs at many other hotels in the region. It was another fruitless endeavor, wasting our courts' valuable time and our tax dollars to boot, over a case that would have little implications over anything.

So we have recent cases of our Justice Department going after reporters, the morning after pill, an internet activist, and a motel in Massachusetts. Meanwhile HSBC is guilty of business dealings with drug cartels and our attorney general says they are just too powerful to deal with. A Justice Department too scared to go after power criminal enterprise is of no good to anyone. It is time for Eric Holder, along with the likes of Stephen Heymann and Lanny Breuer to resign or be dismissed from office for their favoritism of powerful elites and making a mockery of justice in America. 





References:


http://www.npr.org/2013/05/14/183810320/justice-department-secretly-obtains-ap-phone-records
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/jan-june13/pill_06-11.html
http://business.time.com/2013/05/10/aaron-swartzs-father-calls-for-u-s-legal-reforms-ahead-of-mit-report/
http://business.time.com/2013/03/19/u-s-hacker-crackdown-sparks-debate-over-computer-fraud-law/
http://www.buzzfeed.com/justinesharrock/internet-activists-prosecutor-linked-to-another-h
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/07/elizabeth-warren-hsbc-money-laundering_n_2830166.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/eric-holder-banks-too-big_n_2821741.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/11/hsbc-too-big-to-jail_n_2279439.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/26/us-motel-seizure-idUSBRE90P02420130126
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/outrageous-hsbc-settlement-proves-the-drug-war-is-a-joke-20121213

Lou Dobbs' Comments Illustrate Just How Far the Republican Party Still Has To Go

The comments made by Lou Dobbs and Co. on his show last week really exhibit the fact that the Republican Party still has a long way to go in supporting women's rights and courting women back over to the conservative side of the isle. The panel was discussing their opinion of the results of a Pew Study that found 4 in 10 American households have women as the primary breadwinners and they were becoming quite animated about it.  I think the pragmatic response by the average Joe would be, who really cares who makes the money, right?

But remember, this is a political party that lost the female vote in the 2012 election, thanks to making abortion and rape an election issue (a phenomenon so absurd, it is now cemented in history with its own wiki page), and then being constantly reminded of it thanks to the idiocy of the likes of Akin and Mourdoch, who were not only so profoundly stupid to bring up such a topic while running for federal office during an election year, but lacked the tact to hold their crazy comments in until the elections were over. Being stupid and tactless usually isn't the sound way to obtain public office.

So in the wake of such lunacy, we still haven't wised up. It is June 2013 now, and we still have a bunch of angry, old men complaining about the role of women in our society. Although Dobbs and Erickson were rightfully ripped by fellow Fox Analyst Megyn Kelly almost immediately after, the question remains is, what good is such discussion for anyone? How does this discussion help even the scales of women voters between the Democrats and Republicans?

One problem with the mentality of Dobbs and Erickson, is that it is literally so whacked that it is also a self-fulfilling prophecy. In their eyes, the study shows yet another indicator of the downfall of American society. But what their discussion did was to alienate more female voters and remind those on the fence why not to vote Republican. So, next time we are in for serious election, we will lose the women vote, again and the likes of Dobbs and Erickson, still in their denial, will be waving their hands saying "I told you so!" This is despite the fact that it is a mentality like theirs that is really holding the Republican party back, not such farcical things as women making more money to support their families.

The first thing that came to mind when I saw the segment, was the near-constant struggle of girls and women in Pakistan and Afghanistan to have basic rights. Their rhetoric reminds me of the tribal elders in these countries fuming about young girls getting an education, with others acting upon their vitriol with violent outcomes. While the actions may show how these two groups of men differ, their mentality is the same: bitter, old men who refuse to acknowledge and adapt to the expanding role of women in their societies.

More damning is, I thought we were supposed to be the party of sound business practices? Well, sound businesses adapt to the changes in the market and ones that don't, fail. So right now, we are failing miserably. Time to cut ties with the likes of Dobbs and Erickson if we want to be successful moving forward.



References:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/30/fox-female-breadwinners_n_3358926.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_and_pregnancy_controversies_in_United_States_elections,_2012#Todd_Akin:_.22legitimate_rape.22
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/megyn-kelly-lou-dobbs-erick-erickson-fox-news-92080.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/us/politics/rep-todd-akin-legitimate-rape-statement-and-reaction.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/richard-mourdock-rape-comment-puts-romney-defense/story?id=17552263
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/05/13/girl-shot-by-taliban-and-her-father-who-founded-girls-school-in-pakistan/