HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Gothmog » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 31 Next »

Gothmog

Profile Information

Member since: Mon Apr 5, 2004, 04:58 PM
Number of posts: 32,220

Journal Archives

With soaring oratory, Mayor Adler defends taco trucks on every corner

I was at the Johnson Jordan dinner for the Texas Democratic Party last night. The mayor of Austin was in black tie (there was another event in the same hotel on a different floor) and gave one of the better speeches of the night http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/with-soaring-oratory-mayor-adler-defends-taco-truc/nsZq2/

With rhetorical bows to Pericles, Ecclesiastes, Winston Churchill, Abraham Lincoln, Shakespeare and Tom Joad, Austin Mayor Steve Adler defended the taco truck and the desirability of having one on every corner in a mock epic speech at the Texas Democratic Party’s annual Johnson-Jordan Dinner Saturday night at the JW Marriott Austin.

“We in this room know taco trucks for what they are: the very ambassadors of community, of justice, and of guacamole — truly all that makes life worth living, the very bedrocks of our democracy, and of our breakfast,” declared Adler, who then, channeling his inner Churchill, continued, “And so I enjoin you friends to stand with me, to tell the enemies of taco trucks that we will fight them on the street corners. We will fight them in the parks. We will fight them with tortillas, cheese, and chorizo. We will fight them with growing confidence at breakfast and at lunch, and most of all, after closing time.

“We. Will. Never. Surrender. And when it is over, we shall say, never before have so many eaten so well so often.”

Adler was responding to a now famous, much ridiculed comment from Marco Gutierrez, the founder of Latinos for Trump, in a Sept. 1 appearance on MSNBC in the aftermath of Donald Trump’s Aug. 31 visit to Mexico and very tough speech that night in Phoenix on immigration, the border wall, and mass deportation.

I was amazed that one could do 15 to 20 minutes on taco trucks.

Martin O'Malley also gave a great speech.

Trump’s absurd claim that 92 million Americans represent a ‘nation of jobless Americans’

I keep hearing this sad talking point from right wingers https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/09/16/trumps-absurb-claim-that-92-million-americans-represent-a-nation-of-jobless-americans/?tid=pm_politics_pop_b

“Right now, 92 million Americans are on the sideline outside of the workforce, and they’re not a part of our economy. It’s a silent nation of jobless Americans.”

— Donald Trump, speech to the Economic Club of New York, Sept. 15, 2016


Trump is grabbing onto a GOP talking point that first emerged in 2014 when the official unemployment rate starting falling below 7 percent. (It is now 4.9 percent.) Republicans started citing a decline in the labor participation rate, which has occurred largely because the baby boom generation has begun to retire.

But here, Trump expresses the rate as a raw number (“92 million Americans”) and then amps up the rhetoric by referring to a “nation of jobless Americans.” But this is rhetorical poppycock, as we will demonstrate.....

The Pinocchio Test

As you can see, it is absurd to claim that 94 million Americans are on the sidelines of the economy and are part of a “jobless America.” You can’t be jobless if you don’t want a job.

Only a small percentage of these people want a job, as the rest are retired, in school, on disability or caring for children. No matter how much Trump wants to suggest the economy is on the rocks, the fact remains that the unemployment rate is below 5 percent — which is pretty good by any measure.

Four Pinocchios

More Shenanigans from Texas in Voter ID Case: Threats to Investigate Voters Who Sign Affidavits

The State of Texas is not happy about losing the voter id case. The 5th Circuit struck down the Texas voter id/voter suppression law and Texas entered into an agreed order that allows Texas voters to use alternative forms of id other than the GOP approved forms of Id if the voters sign an affidavitt stating they could not reasonably obtain an approved form of Id. There is a motion from the DOJ pending on Texas sending out misleading and false information about the new voting procedure and in addition the Texas Attorney General and the top election official in Harris County have been telling the press that they will investigate voters who vote with an alternative form of id and the plaintiffs in the voter id case filed a motion to prevent this and to clarify order.

One should not threaten voters for voting http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86380

From a newly filed motion from the private plaintiffs, apart from the DOJ filing, and now to be heard at a Sept. 19 hearing:

Private Plaintiffs’1 Motion for Further Relief to Enforce Interim Remedial Order is triggered by a series of statements attributed to Texas officials stating or insinuating that they will conduct criminal investigations of “everyone” who executes the Declaration of Reasonable Impediment, which this Court ordered as part of its interim relief. Those statements are contrar yto the terms of this Court’s Interim Remedial Order, and are intimidating to the very persons that the Order is intended to protect.

On August 26, in a news article appearing in Houston Press, Harris County Clerk Stan Stanart was directly quoted or paraphrased as follows:

Stanart says he will investigate everyone who signs that form to assure they are not lying. Whether anything happens, that’s up to the . But after the votes are counted and the election ends, Stanart said his office will be checking to see whether a person who signed the sworn statement has a Texas Department of Public Safety-issued ID through the DPS database.” Meagan Flynn, Harris County Clerk Will Vet Voters Who Claim to Lack Photo ID, HOUSTON PRESS, Aug. 26, 2016 (attached hereto as Exhibit A) (emphasis added).3 On August 30,

Private Plaintiffs wrote to the State, asking the State to confirm (1) whether Stanart made these remarks, and, (2) irrespective of whether he did, take action to cure the damaging effects of the publication of such statements. Letter from Counsel for the Private Plaintiffs to Angela Colmenero and Matthew Frederick (Aug. 30, 2016) (attached hereto as Exhibit C). Private Plaintiffs expressed concern that these statements will intimidate voters and chill participation in the November election by dissuading voters—who may no longer have once-issued SB 14 ID, or may have forgotten that they have SB 14 ID—from participating in the election or, worse yet, subjecting them to potential prosecution if they execute a Declaration of Reasonable Impediment in good faith. Despite Private Plaintiffs’ attempt to meet-and-confer before presenting this important matter to the Court, Defendants have indicated that they plan to do nothing about and, in effect, condone these remarks. Indeed, Defendants responded to Private Plaintiffs on September 2, stating that Mr. Stanart’s “statements provide no reason to believe that the Harris County clerk ‘will engage in a wholesale investigation of every voter who signs a Reasonable Impediment .’” Letter from Angela Colmenero to Ezra Rosenberg (Sept. 2, 2016), at 2 (quoting Private Plaintiffs’ August 30 letter) (attached hereto as Exhibit D). Private Plaintiffs do not understand why the Harris County Clerk’s quoted statement that he will investigate “everyone who signs that form” provides “no reason” to believe he will do just that.

Moreover, Defendants flatly refused to inquire whether Mr. Stanart made these remarks, and took the troubling position that they have no responsibility for the actions of Texas county and local election officials, including Mr. Stanart—the chief election officer of the largest county in the state, with more than 2 million voters—even when they are implementing this Court’s Interim Remedial Order: “Mr. Stanart is the Harris County Clerk; he is not an employee or agent of any of the named State Defendants in this case. The State Defendants do not have any control over Mr. Stanart or his dealings with the press.” Id. at 3. Finally, Defendants’ September 2 response indicated that they find no problem with Mr. Stanart’s quoted statements and asserted that they have no responsibility to cure any adverse effects of the publicity given to those statements. Id. Defendants’ position—disclaiming the clear intimidating effect of Mr. Stanart’s remarks and any responsibility for the statements or actions of election officials implementing the Court’s order—is a serious confirmation that this Court’s Interim Remedial Order and, indeed, any meaningful remedy resulting from the decision of the Court of Appeals, are at risk in this upcoming election. This is increasingly clear from Defendants’ refusal to correct their own misrepresentations in state-produced materials, even after Plaintiffs have brought those misrepresentations to their attention. See Motion to Enforce Interim Remedial Order by the United States (Doc. 924) (documenting Plaintiffs’ efforts since August 12 to show Defendants that, per the interim remedy order, the standard for signing a Declaration of Reasonable Impediment is if a voter does not possess and cannot reasonably obtain a SB 14 ID). Common sense dictates that, under even normal circumstances, statements by an official that authorities will “investigate everyone” who executes a Declaration of Reasonable Impediment, and threatens to refer them to the District Attorney is self-evidently intimidating. But these are not normal circumstances. The Interim Remedial Order was issued for the express purpose of protecting voters who are the victims of the discriminatory effect of SB 14, who are largely poor and Black and Hispanic Texans. Indeed, it was expressly designed to facilitate their ability to vote, not scare them from coming to the polls. But, as stated in the affidavits of those whose mission is to get out the vote, the publicized statements of Attorney General Paxton and Mr. Stanart are having the opposite effect

More Shenanigans from Texas in Voter ID Case: Threats to Investigate Voters Who Sign Affidavits

Source: Election Law Blog

From a newly filed motion from the private plaintiffs, apart from the DOJ filing, and now to be heard at a Sept. 19 hearing:

Private Plaintiffs’1 Motion for Further Relief to Enforce Interim Remedial Order is triggered by a series of statements attributed to Texas officials stating or insinuating that they will conduct criminal investigations of “everyone” who executes the Declaration of Reasonable Impediment, which this Court ordered as part of its interim relief. Those statements are contrar yto the terms of this Court’s Interim Remedial Order, and are intimidating to the very persons that the Order is intended to protect.

On August 26, in a news article appearing in Houston Press, Harris County Clerk Stan Stanart was directly quoted or paraphrased as follows:

Stanart says he will investigate everyone who signs that form to assure they are not lying. Whether anything happens, that’s up to the . But after the votes are counted and the election ends, Stanart said his office will be checking to see whether a person who signed the sworn statement has a Texas Department of Public Safety-issued ID through the DPS database.” Meagan Flynn, Harris County Clerk Will Vet Voters Who Claim to Lack Photo ID, HOUSTON PRESS, Aug. 26, 2016 (attached hereto as Exhibit A) (emphasis added).3 On August 30,

Private Plaintiffs wrote to the State, asking the State to confirm (1) whether Stanart made these remarks, and, (2) irrespective of whether he did, take action to cure the damaging effects of the publication of such statements. Letter from Counsel for the Private Plaintiffs to Angela Colmenero and Matthew Frederick (Aug. 30, 2016) (attached hereto as Exhibit C). Private Plaintiffs expressed concern that these statements will intimidate voters and chill participation in the November election by dissuading voters—who may no longer have once-issued SB 14 ID, or may have forgotten that they have SB 14 ID—from participating in the election or, worse yet, subjecting them to potential prosecution if they execute a Declaration of Reasonable Impediment in good faith. Despite Private Plaintiffs’ attempt to meet-and-confer before presenting this important matter to the Court, Defendants have indicated that they plan to do nothing about and, in effect, condone these remarks. Indeed, Defendants responded to Private Plaintiffs on September 2, stating that Mr. Stanart’s “statements provide no reason to believe that the Harris County clerk ‘will engage in a wholesale investigation of every voter who signs a Reasonable Impediment .’” Letter from Angela Colmenero to Ezra Rosenberg (Sept. 2, 2016), at 2 (quoting Private Plaintiffs’ August 30 letter) (attached hereto as Exhibit D). Private Plaintiffs do not understand why the Harris County Clerk’s quoted statement that he will investigate “everyone who signs that form” provides “no reason” to believe he will do just that.

Moreover, Defendants flatly refused to inquire whether Mr. Stanart made these remarks, and took the troubling position that they have no responsibility for the actions of Texas county and local election officials, including Mr. Stanart—the chief election officer of the largest county in the state, with more than 2 million voters—even when they are implementing this Court’s Interim Remedial Order: “Mr. Stanart is the Harris County Clerk; he is not an employee or agent of any of the named State Defendants in this case. The State Defendants do not have any control over Mr. Stanart or his dealings with the press.” Id. at 3. Finally, Defendants’ September 2 response indicated that they find no problem with Mr. Stanart’s quoted statements and asserted that they have no responsibility to cure any adverse effects of the publicity given to those statements. Id. Defendants’ position—disclaiming the clear intimidating effect of Mr. Stanart’s remarks and any responsibility for the statements or actions of election officials implementing the Court’s order—is a serious confirmation that this Court’s Interim Remedial Order and, indeed, any meaningful remedy resulting from the decision of the Court of Appeals, are at risk in this upcoming election. This is increasingly clear from Defendants’ refusal to correct their own misrepresentations in state-produced materials, even after Plaintiffs have brought those misrepresentations to their attention. See Motion to Enforce Interim Remedial Order by the United States (Doc. 924) (documenting Plaintiffs’ efforts since August 12 to show Defendants that, per the interim remedy order, the standard for signing a Declaration of Reasonable Impediment is if a voter does not possess and cannot reasonably obtain a SB 14 ID). Common sense dictates that, under even normal circumstances, statements by an official that authorities will “investigate everyone” who executes a Declaration of Reasonable Impediment, and threatens to refer them to the District Attorney is self-evidently intimidating. But these are not normal circumstances. The Interim Remedial Order was issued for the express purpose of protecting voters who are the victims of the discriminatory effect of SB 14, who are largely poor and Black and Hispanic Texans. Indeed, it was expressly designed to facilitate their ability to vote, not scare them from coming to the polls. But, as stated in the affidavits of those whose mission is to get out the vote, the publicized statements of Attorney General Paxton and Mr. Stanart are having the opposite effect

Read more: http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86380



The State of Texas is not happy about losing the voter id case. The 5th Circuit struck down the Texas voter id/voter suppression law and Texas entered into an agreed order that allows Texas voters to use alternative forms of id other than the GOP approved forms of Id if the voters sign an affidavitt stating they could not reasonably obtain an approved form of Id. There is a motion from the DOJ pending on Texas sending out misleading and false information about the new voting procedure and in addition the Texas Attorney General and the top election official in Harris County have been telling the press that they will investigate voters who vote with an alternative form of id and the plaintiffs in the voter id case filed a motion to prevent this and to clarify order.

One should not threaten voters for voting

Breaking: DC Circuit Reverses in Kobach-EAC Proof of Citizenship Voting Case

Source: Election Law Blog

Acting very quickly after oral argument, the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit has issued this order preliminarily enjoining changing the federal form to allow Kansas, Alabama, and Georgia to require documentary proof of citizenship if registering to vote using a federal voter registration form.

The vote was 2-1, with senior Judge Randolph dissenting.

The ruling is only on the request for a preliminary injunction. There can still be a full hearing on the merits.

The upshot is that for this election, the federal form cannot include a state request for proof of citizenship documentation before voting. That is good news for voters, because it will be easier to register and vote in these states. And it won’t harm voters or the state, because the amount of non-citizen voting is quite small.

Read more: http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86390



The Kansas Sec. of State, Kobach, has been trying to force voters to provide proof of citizenship to register to vote. A Kobach ally got on the United States Election Assistance Commission and adopted Kobach's proposal for voters in Kansas, Georgia and Arizona. The resulto of this would be that voters in these states would have to provide birth certificates or other forms of proof of citizenship to register to vote. The district court denied injunction but the DC circuit overturned and granted injunction. The Obama administration did not defend this rule and weighed in on the winning side.

“Democrats Settle Election Dispute with the State of Arizona”

Source: Election Law Blog

Release:

The Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Ann Kirkpatrick for Arizona, the Arizona Democratic Party, Hillary for America, and Sanders, Inc., announced that they reached a settlement in their joint lawsuit against Maricopa County, Arizona that will make it easier for residents to vote.

Maricopa County miscalculated voter turnout and underestimated the number of vote centers needed to accommodate voters during the March presidential primaries. In the federal lawsuit, Democrats proffered a line expert explaining why Maricopa County’s allocation formulas were wrong, and offered a number of remedies. In response to the Democrats’ motion for an injunction, Maricopa County represented to the Court that it would be implementing many of those suggestions. In addition, as part of the settlement agreement, Maricopa County agreed to consider further recommendations from line experts to better ensure that voters will not again be subject to unacceptably long lines as a result of unsupported allocation decisions.

Marc Elias:“Great result for the voters of Maricopa. The remaining claims remain against the state.”

Read more: http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86399



Arizona had understaffed the Arizona primary which resulted in long delays. Hillary Clinton's election law litigator brought this lawsuit due to long delays in the Arizona primary and forced a favorable settlement.

Trump's Austin rally is closest-to-election Texas foray by a presidential contender in two decades

Is Texas a swing state now? http://beta.dallasnews.com/news/2016-presidential-election/2016/08/22/trumps-austin-rally-closest-election-texas-foray-presidential-contender-two-decades

Donald Trump is staging two public campaign events in Austin on Tuesday, making his foray into Texas the closest to the general election by any major-party presidential nominee in two decades.

Except to serve as an ATM for candidates briefly stopping over to raise money, Texas is generally inert during general-election contests for the White House.

It hasn't voted for a Democrat for president since Jimmy Carter carried the state in 1976 against President Gerald Ford.

Nothing much happens here after the primaries — and in some cycles, during the primaries as well as the general election.
How do you explain Trump's investment of most of a day in public events in Austin on Tuesday?

John Lewis’ March is an essential read in a turbulent political climate

I have signed copies of Book One and Book Two of this series and I am looking forward to reading book three http://www.avclub.com/article/john-lewis-march-essential-read-turbulent-politica-241001



March: Book Three is filled with smart, expressive artistic decisions like these, and the story ends with Lewis thanking his future artistic collaborator via his past self. As Lewis heads to work in 2009, he tells his future co-writer, Aydin, that he wants to pursue a comic book idea he has, and that they need to find an artist who “can make the words sing.” That’s exactly what Powell accomplishes in this trilogy, and the sweeping rhythm and rich emotion he brings to Lewis’ story makes March an unforgettable journey to the past that will surely inspire countless readers in the future.

I will be buying a couple copies of book three and hope that I can get Congressman Lewis to sign these copies.

Clinton campaign has best fundraising month

These are great numbers http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/02/politics/clinton-fundraising-july/index.html?sr=twpol080216clinton-fundraising-july1254PMStoryLink&linkId=27191684

The Hillary Clinton campaign announced Tuesday it pulled in $90 million last month for her campaign and the Democratic Party -- its best fundraising month of the race.

The campaign also announced that it had $58 million cash on hand at the start of August.

The Clinton campaign also touted bringing in $8.7 million in the 24 hours after she accepted the nomination last week -- a haul that exceeded some of Bernie Sanders best efforts in the thick of the Democratic primary.

The campaign said in a statement that the average donation for the month was just $44 and about 54 percent of donations in the month of July came from new donors.

4th Circuit case-“In voter ID case, GOP leader says ‘Daily Show’ source a ‘pain in the …’”

The daily show was cited in the 4th Circuit case on voter id http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84821

News & Observer:

A formal federal court ruling’s unusual reference to “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” has left North Carolina Republicans again distancing themselves from a former party official who made racially charged remarks back in 2013 about the state’s voter ID law.

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals decision, published Friday, quotes former Buncombe County, North Carolina, precinct chairman Don Yelton as saying on the Daily Show three years ago: If the N.C. voter ID law “hurts the whites, so be it. If it hurts a bunch of lazy blacks that want the government to give them everything, so be it.”

Yelton’s interview on the satirical Comedy Central show helped federal judges make the case that North Carolina’s voter ID law is discriminatory.

I am geek and so I found the footnote in question-footnote 7 http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/nc-4th.pdf

Some of the statements by those supporting the legislation
included a Republican precinct chairman who testified before the
House Rules Committee that the photo ID requirement would
“disenfranchise some of special voting blocks
,” and that “that within itself is the reason for the photo
voter ID, period, end of discussion.” See J.A. 1313-14; Yelton
testimony, Transcript of Public Hearing of the North Carolina
General Assembly, House Elections Committee (Apr. 10, 2013) at
51. Responding to the outcry over the law after its enactment,
the same witness later said publicly: “If hurts
the whites so be it. If it hurts a bunch of lazy blacks that
want the government to give them everything, so be it.” See
J.A. 1313-14; Joe Coscarelli, Don Yelton, GOP Precinct Chair,
Delivers Most Baldly Racist Daily Show Interview of All Time,
New York Magazine, Oct. 24, 2013. These statements do not prove
that any member of the General Assembly necessarily acted with
discriminatory intent. But the sheer outrageousness of these
public statements by a party leader does provide some evidence
of the racial and partisan political environment in which the
General Assembly enacted the law.
Appeal: 16-1468 Doc: 150 Filed: 07/29/2016 Pg: 47 of 83
48

This really makes me smile
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 31 Next »