Do the Harris County Hustle

Harris County, we have at least* three more elections to vote in this year, so don’t go into hibernation until November.

You’re going to have the do the Harris County Hustle. Cue that groovy disco piccolo.

That video is the classic Hustle, not the Harris County Hustle.

Remember the Texas Two-Step in 2008 when you had to vote in the primary and then caucus after the polls closed?

That’s not what this is.

The Harris County Hustle is voting twice in two different elections in May.

Republicans are hoping you will not care about the first one, and will forget about the second one.

They’re trying to hustle you, so you gotta out-hustle them. The Harris County Hustle.

Now, get out your calendar and put VOTE on two dates:

Saturday, May 4, 2024
and
Tuesday, May 28, 2024

Use ink, please.

I’m going to give you the dates & details, and then will link to another blog and a Trib article for some background on why you need to vote on May 4th. And when I get organized, I’ll do a deeper dive into the reasons behind what’s going on and who to vote for and why, and then link it back to this post.

But please, today, take my word for it. You need to vote on May 4th & you need to vote for the slate below. And then you need to vote again on May 28th.

May 4th Special Election: Logistics

Saturday, May 4th will be Star Wars Day, yes, but it will also be a special election with, depending on where you live in the county, only 3 or 4 races on the ballot.

The is a sneaky election and the majority of races will be for a new position that for the time being does not seem to have any policy role to play. It definitely doesn’t pay. Republicans are hoping you’ll think doesn’t matter and skip voting.

It will matter. We may not understand exaclty how yet, but who do you trust – me or Republican Paul Bettencourt who created this new elected position? Here’s more background from Off the Kuff and the Texas Tribune.

The slate to vote for:

  • Place 1: Katherine Ballard Blueford-Daniels
  • Place 2: Melissa Noriega
  • Place 3: Melody Genneane Ellis she has withdrawn, so the new pick is Pelumi Adeleke (updated 3/21/24)

People in Texas Senate District 15 will also pick who will fill the remainder of current Mayor Whitmire’s senate term on May 4th. That district is not countywide, however, so most voters will have only the HCAD races on the ballot.

[If you are saying hey, I just voted in that Senate race, you were actually voting in the March primary election for the term that does not begin until January 2025. The May 4th election will decide who gets the seat for the rest of 2024. More in a bit. We know that Molly Cook and Jarvis Johnson got the most votes and so are the only two candidates in the May 28th runoff. Is it possible that another one of the candidates who didn’t make the runoff could win the special? Yes, I think so, and that would be weird, huh? But don’t get districted.] [Updated to add: only Molly Cook and Jarvis Johnson remain in the May 4th race. The other candidates have withdrawn per the Texas Secretary of State website.]

You can vote in this election even if you did not in March.

Other notable dates leading up to this election:

  • If you’re going to be out of town April 22 – May 4, request a ballot by mail now
  • Thursday April 4: You must be registered to vote by this day to vote on May 4th
  • Monday April 22: First day of early voting
  • Tuesday April 23: Last day to request a mail ballot
  • Tuesday, April 30: Last day of early voting
  • Saturday, May 4: Election Day

May 28th Primary Runoff: Logistics

The races on the May 28th ballot are those from March 5th in which no one got over 50% of the vote. In a number of races, most of which are countywide, this is the race that will determine who the Democratic nominee will be on the ballot in November.

One of those races is the Texas Senate District 15 – the candidates are simultaneously running for the remainder of the current term and the full next term.

You can vote in the Democratic primary runoff in May even if you did not vote at all in March, or if you voted in the March Democratic primary.

If you voted in the Republican primary in March, however, you can only vote in the Republican runoff. You can’t cross back to the Democratic runoff. And why are you voting for Republicans? They are just horrid.

Notable dates:

  • You can request a mail ballot if you will be out of town May 20 – 28. Do it now.
  • April 29: Deadline to register to vote if you’re not already registered or if you need to update your registration.
  • Monday May 20: first day of early voting
  • Friday May 17: last day to apply to vote by mail
  • Friday May 24: Last day of early voting
  • Monday May 27: Memorial Day
  • Tuesday May 28: Election Day

Yep, Election Day is the day after a long weekend. You should vote early, and encourage everyone else to do the same.

If you like voting on Election Day, I get it. Vote early anyway, and then on Election Day, you can still walk down to your precinct and say hey to everyone and get a sticker or a donut.

Much more to come, but I wanted to be sure that you get these dates on your calendar now so they don’t catch you by surprise.

Trust me, in both of these elections, every single vote will matter. So don’t screw this up.

*The reason I said at least 3 more times is that if the May 4th election doesn’t have one candidate who gets 50% + 1, a.k.a. the majority needed to win, there could be a special election runoff. No date as of yet.

Posted in Houston, politics, Texas, Texas Progressive Alliance | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Men & Dogs in Texas

Molly Ivins used to remind us regularly that Texas is a fine place for men and dogs, but hell on women and horses.I’d like to ask how long Democrats are OK letting that be the status quo, because I, for one, am ready for us to do better.

Exhibit A: First-time candidate Pervez Agwan, who has tried to frame himself as progressive.

AOC-inspired graphic design and stringing buzzy slogans together, however, does not a progressive make.

After allegations that he not only tolerated sexual harassment by a key staffer, but also directly harassed at least one young woman he had hired, he pulled a move so well-known to targets of misogynistic behavior that it has an acronym, the DARVO.

  • DENY: When news broke that a former staffer had filed a civil suit alleging sexual harassment and false imprisonment, he “called the lawsuit politically motivated and said the allegations are “unequivocally false.””
  • ACCUSE: In a singularly odious accomplishment, he didn’t just blame someone else. He added a heaping helping of antisemitism to the mix, bizarrely blaming AIPAC, the American Israsel Public Affairs Committee for the lawsuit, a line of attack he’s continuing to promote. He didn’t even see the accuser as someone with the agency to form her own conclusion about his campaign’s refusal to create a safe working environment.
  • REVERSE VICTIM AND OFFENDER: This is the inevitable moment in any story of rape, assault, or harassment–someone will protest that we cannot possibly hold this man accountable for his behafior becuase it might ruin his life.

    The line that just about did me because of how it reminded me of so many situations I and my friends have been in was another former stafffer recounting the candidate’s lament after two of them spoke to him about misogynistic behavior from his Organizing Director.

“He was curing a lot…asking why this was happening to him again.”

Why this was happening to him.

Sure, young women on the campaign were subjected to demeaning and dehumanizing sexual objectification, but the thing he focused on was what was happening to him.

And the latest from the Houston Landing suggests he’s still focused on himself and not fixing the problem or learning anything from the experience.

A spokesperson for the campaign invited the Houston Landing to interview Campaign Manager Alex Inkiow in late December. Inkiow offered an account of four months of internal strife while denying the key allegations against Agwan and Organizing Director Angelo Perlera. His assertions were contradicted in separate interviews with several ex-staffers accusing Perlera, Agwan and a former senior campaign staff member of sexual misconduct. 

Inkiow’s key claim that senior staff were unaware of any reported inappropriate workplace behavior by Perlera prior to a lawsuit being filed on Dec. 1 is contradicted by text messages shared by former staffers and the campaign’s own statement in response to the filing of the lawsuit. 

The campaign did not respond to requests from the Landing for any internal correspondence that could support its claim that it was unaware of the allegations, and Agwan failed to appear for a scheduled interview.

From “Agwan campaign is trying to move past misconduct allegations. Its accusers won’t let it,” by Paul Cobler, Houston Landing, published January 18, 2024.

A few years back, some brave souls tried to organize to protect the next generation of young, idealistic people entering the regressive field of Texas politics and policy. Olivia Messer wrote about the Burn Book of Bad Men. This spreadsheet populated from anonymous submissions about various politicians and operatives around the lege and throughout the state was meant to show anyone experiencing this bad behavior that they were not alone.

A small circle of men I respect and admire asked how they should respond, how they could help. They took part in a series of meetings about it.

I picked a brand new spiral notebook to document our plans.

Reader, I regret to inform you that its pages are largely blank.

Not entirely blank, though, because many of them were on hand to rally others when one brave woman who was only too familiar with the behavior that got men included in that Burn Book, took action. Voice shaking, she stepped to the mic in front of an auditorium full of people she knew, had worked alongside, and had advocated for, and she asked that the Houston LGBT Political Caucus (now the LGBTQ+ Caucus) deny Borris Miles the organization’s endorsement given his documented-by-police-and-court-records misogynistic and violent behavior that included brandishing a pistol during an argument and forcibly kissing a woman at a party.

I was there. I spoke up in support of that first woman, and I was shaking, too. A friend noticed and came to stand right by my side, and he stayed there the whole time providing more support than he might have realized as a line of very powerful people, many of whom were elected officials, basically said look, he’s one of our guys, and Democrats can’t afford to lose any guys, so we’re backing this guy.

But the body voted to deny that endorsement. Had my friend not been standing so close, I would have collapsed. I definitely cried. I had no idea how much sadness, anger, and fear I was carrying until the results were announced.

It was a blip, though. It wasn’t the beginning of a new era, and when stories like this latest one come out, it is hard to be optimistic.

Now, it can be done, so we can’t lose hope.

Even the Republican-dominated Texas House of Representatives wasn’t willing to turn a blind eye when the story broke that one of its sanctimonious family values champions, now former Rep. Bryan Slaton, had engaged in what gets euphemistically called “inappropriate sexual conduct” with a campaign staffer. The House, to its great credit, did its own investigation and kicked him out.

The vote was unanimous. That’s a pretty big blip.

I am sorry that they have to be the ones to do it, but I hope the people who’ve left Agwan’s campaign keep this issue in front of voters. I don’t care how progressive his values may be–we simply cannot continue to reward behavior like this in politicians, or we’ll never truly build an equitable democracy.

I appreciate the Houston Landing for continuing to report on the story. We need journalism like this, so I hope their board and EIC can restore trust and keep the momentum going.

And look, you may not know me, but if you’re in politics and someone has assaulted you, or propositioned you, or leered at you late at night in the office after you suddenly realize once again he’s managed to arrange things so that the two of you are the only ones left working, tell someone.

If you don’t know who to tell, tell me. Because I promise you, you’re not the only one, and you won’t be the last one. I’ll keep your secret, because your story isn’t mine to tell unless you give me permission to do so. I’ll encourage you to tell it. I’ll help you find the people who can support and protect you. Or I’ll just listen, if that’s what you need, and I’ll believe you.

Posted in Houston, politics, progressive, Texas, time for action, Uncategorized | Tagged , | 2 Comments

Whitmire – Once a Legislator, Always a Legislator

On Saturday, for a brief moment, a majority of Texans held out hope that this time, things would be different. This time, evidence of the Attorney General’s corruption had been so thoroughly exposed in such painstaking detail that even Republicans in the State Senate would, as the majority of their peers in the State House of Representatives had, cry uncle and vote to remove him from office.

And then, with two notable exceptions, the majority of Republicans in the Texas Senate put party over reality and voted to acquit Ken Paxton.

If you’re about to remind me that Senator John Whitmire, candidate for Mayor of Houston this November, voted to sustain the articles of impeachment and convict Paxton, save your breath. I know he voted with the Democrats on this. (And yes I know that a few times, even Democrats voted to acquit, but that’s not the focus here.)

What I want to talk about is the fact that John Whitmire’s orientation towards government is so thoroughly mired in a legislative mindset that he simply cannot pivot to be an effective executive leader.

He has lost the ability to step up, stake out a strong position, and call for others to follow him. He only knows how to cut deals, anticipate the come-around, and hold out for his own long-term best interests.

And those are not the qualities Houston needs in a mayor.

Houston Chronicle reporter Jasper spoke to Whitmire after the Senate’s shameful Paxton vote, and the Lt. Governor’s even more shameful speech that was the opening salvo in what is shaping up to be a frogs-and-hellfire-level campaign of retribution against the Texas House of Representatives for daring, for having the audacity, to try to hold thrice-indicted, embroiled-in-an-FBI-investigation-over-bribery-allegations Ken Paxton accountable.

And what did this man who is so quick to remind us that he is the Dean of the Texas Senate have to say?

This man who all of the pundits assume is about to buy his way out of the Senate and into Houston City Hall with his vast reserves of campaign funds hoarded over the years as Democrats around him struggled?

This man who claims to be a Democrat, who is running to lead a city that has voted for Democrats in increasing numbers? This city that is in a county where Democrats can and do win without any Republican support?

Listen, no one here was buying Dan Patrick’s sanctimonious act during the hearing. Very fair? He was the bare minimum of fair. Did he rule against Paxton’s side? Sure he did. Was he doing so because he wanted to appear fair? Arguably.

Others have pointed out the irony of a presiding judge in a case addressing allegations including bribery taking major donations from the supporters of the person being accused of bribery. In fact, here’s the Texas Tribune giving you just the facts, ma’am:

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who is presiding over the impeachment trial of suspended Attorney General Ken Paxton, received $3 million in campaign support last month from a top group campaigning against Paxton’s impeachment.

In a campaign-finance report published Tuesday, Patrick — who is not up for reelection until 2026 — reported a $1 million contribution and a $2 million loan from Defend Texas Liberty PAC. The political action committee was by far his biggest benefactor on the report, which covered Patrick’s fundraising from June 19-30. It was the first opportunity state officials had to fundraise since the House impeached Paxton in late May.

Patrick’s Senate has scheduled a trial to begin Sept. 5 to determine whether to permanently remove Paxton from office. Patrick has been acting as presiding officer of the trial — effectively the judge — and the fundraising period partially overlapped with the Senate’s deliberations over the trial rules. The chamber approved the rules June 21.

The news of the PAC’s financial support came the day after Patrick followed through on a requirement in the rules and issued a sweeping gag order on all parties involved in the trial.

From Texas Tribune: Pro-Paxton group gives $3 million to impeachment trial judge Dan Patrick by Patrick Svitek.

Whitmire gains nothing by calling the Lt. Governor–pardon me, DAN–fair. There is no reason, particularly in light of the speech the Lite Guv delivered after the verdict was announced, to talk about this as anything more than a new chapter in the bareknuckle cage match the reactionary Republican right has dragged the rest of the state into against our will and often against our votes.

But this is what I mean by legislative brain. He is so used to currying favor with Republicans in the legislature that he cannot take a stand even when the Lite Guv and Senate Republicans*

Whitmire has forgotten how to fight, and right now, Houston needs someone who will fight.

Is he worried that if he makes Dan Patrick angry, he might not get a committee chairmanship? Why does that matter?

Either he’s mayor and he doesn’t need one, or he goes back to the Senate and maybe doesn’t get a committee chairmanship. Do we care? He barely functioned as a Democrat the last time he had a chairmanship. And by last time, I mean a couple of months ago in the most recent session. Without a Democratic majority, any power he thinks he has in the Senate is mostly meaningless.

Is he worried that if he is elected mayor, the Lite Guv will be a big ol’ meanie unless Whitmire continues to say nice things about him?

Why is is so fixated on saying nice things about one of the most vile and vituperative men the Texas Republican Party has unleashed upon us in a generation?

This is Texas, so maybe I need to remind you, and remind John Whitmire, of Dan Patrick’s favorite football play.

For those of you who have not yet had your coffee, that would be Dan Patrick as the holder. And yes, I looked that up, it’s a football word, holder.

The Republicans in charge in Austin have never been more dangerous to those of us living in majority-Democratic cities.

They’ve gerrymandered districts. They set up most of the dominoes that fell and took our right to abortion away. They’ve dropped balls of razor wire into the Rio Grande to maim people while thumbing their noses as federal laws and courts. They’ve usurped our duly elected school board, which, you know, is not as bloody as what they’re doing on the border, but which will cut this city’s future off at the knees.

Why did John Whitmire, on one of the most shameful days in Texas legislative history, when the Senate gave a big thumbs up to lawlessness in the AG’s office and a bigger middle finger to Texans who believe in things like laws, ethics, and honor, pause to say he thought Dan Patrick was fair?

Now is the time for Democrats to stand up and call out the dangerous hypocrisy and shameful pay-to-play state of Republican politics in Texas.

Give us some passion!

Give us some leadership!

Give us some fire, man!

Oh wait, you can’t because you’re busy with the firemen.

Because bless that cracked crab carcass stuck between your ribs in place of a heart, John Whitmire, you are a legislator. Born to the back-room deal, locked into the endless exchange of chits and favors, and too busy hoarding your political capital to spend any of it for the benefit of the people you say you want to serve.

You’re too busy trying to win Republican support in a city that is our state’s best hope for breaking away from the Republican stranglehold on policy and politics.

I could list any number of policy reasons Whitmire is the wrong choice for this city in this moment. And I can list the ones the right candidate should champion. But I’m quite certain that regardless of the policy, Whitmire lacks the will to be a champion.

I’m not expecting a hero. But I don’t think it is too much to expect that a person who wants to lead the 4th largest city in the country to have enough snap to criticize one of the ringmasters of the most cynical circus on earth.

*All but their four fastest ships, or, uh, I mean two reality-based, taking-their-oath-seriously Republicans who will no doubt suffer for their silly focus on what’s right and what’s legal and what the evidence shows.

Posted in Houston, politics | Tagged | Leave a comment

Whitmire Makes the Case for Molly Cook for Texas Senate, Part II

The January 31, 2022 candidate forum featuring John Whitmire and Molly Cook attracted such a crowd that the organizers – South Asian American Voter Empowerment (SAAVETX) along with the West U and Bellaire Dems – had to open an overflow “room” for viewing on YouTube. Zoom was too full.

If you have time to watch the full video, or read the transcript, you should. Go to YouTube for the video. And you can download a transcript I created here.

A note on the transcript. I used an online automatic transcription tool to get it all down, but it it still a little rough. This copy I’ve linked has timestamps, so if you see something that isn’t clear and context doesn’t suggest the proper transcription, you can go to that point in the video and listen. I’m not attempting to hide anything but not fixing the whole transcript – I simply don’t have time.

Now, to the highlights. Or lowlights.

Just as in the Off the Kuff interview I wrote about, once again, the major takeaways from this forum are:

  • That John Whitmire no longer has a proactive agenda or creative ideas for how to overcome gridlock in Austin, and that in the face of Dan Patrick’s autocratic style, his tenure doesn’t actually mean much other than the empty symbolism of the title Dean of the Senate.
  • That Whitmire is so focused on the tactics that he fails to make connections between issues and ignores the value and importance of addressing explicitly how ongoing racist vitriol and widening economic disparities are the direct consequence of business as usual.

He is completely bogged down in the day-to-day tactics of how the right stirs up faux outrage over imagined threats to distract us from the momentum they’ve created for a sharp move toward autocracy and away from representative democracy.

He regularly says things that reveal his analysis of key issues is dated and siloed. For example, yes, the right’s Critical Race Theory tantrum is part of a strategy to undermine confidence in public schools (see transcript at approximately 10:05). But it is much bigger than that and in fact, is part of the right’s full-court press to undermine our foundational policy of free speech as written in the First Amendment, while at the same time, othering and dehumanizing Black people to attack the expansion of who counts in “We, the People” that was codified in places such as the Fourteenth Amendment.

He continues to blame other people for not doing enough to stop what’s happening in Austin. Once again, at 26:07, hs calls slams hope the point that for things to change, “the Hispanic proud population has to be more engaged.”

Once again, when asked how things can change (approx. 48:19), he falls back on stories from decades ago about one time when he said something to some other elected officials.

Whitmire: [Politics] is not a play thing. It’s not a popularity contest. We have to get young people involved. We have to get minorities involved. We have to continue to double down, fighting the Republicans and letting everyone know that elections matter. In ’98, I think it was Sheila Jackson Lee had me, Sylvester [Turner], who was a state rep, [U.S. Rep.] Gene Green, the north side elected officials. We met in ’98 and Sheila was concerned. There wasn’t a lot of energy in the African American community.

He tries to claim credit for things he’s actually taken very little leadership on. When most members of the Texas Democratic delegation fled the state to protest voter suppression bills, Whitmire notably stayed behind. In the forum (approx. 45:00), he refers to how he helped Senator Alvarado in her symbolic* filibuster against the voter suppression tactics. As Molly Cook points out (approx. 50:34), he may have supported her, but his name wasn’t on any actual legislative alternatives.

At the same time, this long-serving government official who has been signing off on regular campaign finance reports every year he’s been in office feigns ignorance over who, in fact, is giving him money. Cook points out (approx. 1:04):

Cook: I will point out that as the chair of the [Criminal Justice] committee, Senator Whitmire, between 2013 and 2016, accepted $25,000 in campaign contributions from private prisons, some which are still associated with incarcerating folks at the border. So I am fully committed to remaining transparent, to upholding ethics of campaign contributions and campaign finance so that I can actually represent the will of the people and work against for-profit prisons. I promise never to accept a dime from a for-profit prison.

Given the opportunity to respond, Senator Whitmire (approx. 1:06:41) says:

Whitmire: I haven’t, I haven’t taken [money from private prison companies] and I don’t monitor it. It, but I haven’t taken contribution from the private industry since the dates that she mentioned. I, uh, her, obviously her opposition research is <laugh> is getting her information that I haven’t kept up with. Cause it’s not relevant. We’re not taking those contributions now, nor are we taking NRA money. And when the Republican party went so far hard, right. We just said, enoughs enough. And we do not receive those contributions or ratings

Important to note that Cook was very clear in defining the date range. She wasn’t misconstruing anything.

I would submit that someone who claims he doesn’t monitor his campaign donations but does say that he knows he’s not taking those contributions is perhaps trying to have it both ways. The moderator clarifies that as far as he knows, at least, he’s not taking such contributions. This doesn’t change the fact that during his recent tenure as Dean of the Senate, and thus the highest-ranking Democratic official in the state, he saw no conflict in taking those donations.

He’s continuing to promote public-private partnerships that abdicate government responsibility while ignoring long-term, systemic issues. He makes a very cavalier observation (approx. 51:57), after talking about having Buc-ee’s, the privately-owned chain of gas station/convenience stores located primarily in rural areas along interstates agreeing in theory to add electric vehicle charging to their sites, that if we had some electric Ford trucks, the next time we have a big freeze, people could stay warm plugging their houses into their trucks for a few hours of power.

WHAT? People literally died in that freeze. Strong-arming a utility company to install a few electric car charging stations at the GOP-donor-owned Buc-ee’s stores in places like Cypress, Baytown, and Pearland won’t do a damn bit of good to anyone living inside Beltway 8 in Houston who has to rely on an hours-long bus commute just to get to a job that pays an hourly-but-not-living wage.

In her response to Whitmire’s ‘let’s let private industry take care of this’ response, Cook shows why she has impressed so many people. Her answer demonstrates a deep understanding for the complexities and interconnectedness of policy issues:

Cook at 52:51: While I am supportive of switching from fossil fuels to electric vehicles, we cannot act like EVs are the answer to our transportation problems or to our climate change problems. EVs are still single occupancy vehicles. They still will not reduce traffic and they will not necessarily make us any safer. You still have a person behind the wheel. Um, it’s really, really important to emphasize the class disparities and access to environmental and to electric vehicles as well. We have to talk about public transit. So while I am supportive of making it easier for folks to drive EVs around adding charging stations, lowering taxes on EVs and, um, providing incentives for those things, I really don’t like to talk about them without talking about public transit and first mile last mile, because that will have a real impact on climate change, a real impact on reducing emissions and also allow us to stop extracting the things that we need to create these batteries that come from other countries. So, uh, I just wanna point out that we really have to shift the paradigm around single occupancy vehicles to make and shape the kind of change we want to see in Texas in a way that’s sensitive to those who cannot afford to drive a car.

I encourage you to read the transcript, or better yet, listen to the recording of the forum, so you can capture the tone and nuance.

Given the number of text messages I got during the forum, I was not the only one who noticed that John Whitmire is starting to sound like a petulant child annoyed that the grown-ups, particularly women, are trying to hold him accountable for what his plan is for moving ahead rather than allowing him to rest on his laurels to take a victory lap before ducking out to run another race for another office.

One notable exchange exposes the nasty edge to his attitude:

Neha Madhani (00:43:36): Senator Whitmire, you’ve had 38 years in Austin.

John Whitmire (00:43:42): Yes. Ma’am

Neha Madhani (00:43:45): Tell me how we in District 15 should have faith in you in you that you will push a Democratic agenda and, um, and be our representative, even though you may be considering running for mayor. Tell us why we should put our faith in you–

[Whitmire cuts her off before she completes her sentence]

John Whitmire (00:44:08): Because I told you, I believe public service is a calling. I am dedicated to my job. I have six- and eight-year-old grandchildren. I run government for their future. That’s the test I’ll put it to. There is no reason to have my experience if you don’t use it. We have major challenges. Next session will be worse and meaner than the last one. They have not stopped. They’re emboldened, they’ll carry forward. They did control redistricting. They’ve got the courts on their side. I–

Neha Madhani (00:44:41): I, I understand understand, and you you’ve been there for 38 years. What makes it–

John Whitmire (00:44:46): Because I have a record. You can look at my record of accomplishment.

Neha Madhani (00:44:49): …what makes this next year different? Why will it be different if we vote are voting for you? What will make it different for us?

Keep reading, or listening.

I suspect you will find his response as underwhelming as I did.

And allow me to add one ore thing I heard in his response that I found singularly insidious and ugly.

Whitmire refers to his grandchildren, and suggests that his public service is on their behalf. That’s lovely and we should all be concerned about the world we are collectively leaving behind for those who follow us.

But his mention of children follows a familiar pattern in politics when one candidate is a woman who is not married, does not have children, or has spoken publicly about a decision not to have a child at a given point in time. Politicians never seem to talk about children unless they are trying to insinuate that their opponent is somehow not the “right kind” of woman if she does not have children.

I don’t know that he did this intentionally. And I know that many of his closest political allies and even long-time personal friends are women who are unmarried and not currently parents. Even the forum’s moderator had to point out her own mistake in how she was addressing the candidates. At 18:30, she apologizes for calling Molly Cook by her first name while giving John Whitmire the honor of his title.

But that just speaks to the point. Sexism is endemic, and particularly problematic in politics. We’ve all seen the stories about how women are treated at the legislature. How women staffers are preyed upon, dismissed, and undermined by men who hold positions of power over them.

Where was Whitmire when, again and again, stories bubbled up?

It not only rings hollow for me to hear him suddenly drag the procreative capabilities of his own offspring into his case for support, but it raises my hackles as a woman angry at the long-term, systemic discrimination women in Austin have faced and his lack of leadership in doing anything to change things.

All I hear in his tone and his inability to articulate a proactive agenda for leadership is the list of reasons that Molly Cook should be the next Senator for Texas District 15.

Please vote for her, and encourage your friends to as well. If we keep sending who we’ve always sent, we’re going to keep getting what we’ve been getting. And frankly, what that is is our asses kicked and our rights stripped away. That is unacceptable. That’s not the Texas I want, for his grandchildren or for anyone else.

*I call Sen. Alvarado’s filibuster symbolic because given the time left in the session, the GOP majorities in both houses, and the actual rules of the filibuster in the Texas Senate and the practical impossibility of any human being carrying one out for more than a day or two at the very longest, it was impossible that her effort could have stopped the bill. I do believe it was important inasumuch as it called attention to the issue, however, but it should be distinguished from times (such as the 2013 filibuster) when as a procedural tactic, it killed a bill.

Posted in Texas | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Whitmire Makes the Case for Voting for Cook in the State Senate District 15 Primary, Part I of II

Indefatigable blogger Charles Kuffner interviewed Senator John Whitmire earlier in January. More recently, Whitemire squared up against challenger Molly Cook in a forum hosted by SAAVETX West U/Bellaire Senate District 15.

Reviewing transcripts of both events, I realized that Senator Whitmire himself makes a pretty strong case for why Democrats in Senate District 15 should vote for ER nurse, policy wonk, and community organizer Molly Cook.

First, a note about the sources for the quotes I’ll highlight below.

The first is Off the Kuff, Texas’ longest-running progressive political blog, is authored by Charles Kuffner. His commitment to interviewing dozens upon dozens of Democratic candidates before primaries and elections is an incredibly valuable public service he provides for free. While he has clearly staked out the left end of the spectrum in terms of who he interviews, he pulls no punches and does not shy away from tough questions.

Here is a link to his interview with Whitmire.

The forum between Whitemire and Cook was co-sponsored by the West U and Bellaire Democratic clubs and SAAVETX. SAAVE is South Asian American Voter Empowerment, a statewide advocacy organization formed to increase the political influence of Texas’ progressive South Asian-American community through education, engagement, and empowerment.

The forum was moderated by Neha Madhani, a Pharmacy Clinical Practice Specialist with UTMB Corrrectional Managed Care, working with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, represented SAAVE as the moderator. Her 16 years’ experience with the policy and reality of care that incarcerated people in Texas receive made her the ideal moderator for these two candidates: Senator Whitmire, who has chaired the Senate’s Criminal Justice Committee and has deep insight into what has shaped our state’s policies; Molly Cook, with a MSN/MPH from Johns Hopkins giving her both the policy chops and on-the-ground experience as an ER nurse, most recently in the Covid-19 era when systems are on the brink of collapse.

Here is a link to the forum on YouTube.

Note – both the interview and forum were recorded live and no transcripts were provided. I used an online service to produce my own transcripts. In the quotations below, I have tried to note approximate times and reproduce exactly what was said, leaving in ums and uhs. Whenever possible, I try to use the entire sentences and paragraphs, but the interview rambled. So, it may read a bit awkwardly, but if you read while listening along, you should be able to follow it very closely.

And now, John Whitmire, in his own words from his interview with Charles Kuffner. I will walk through the candidate forum in Part II of this blog post.

Question, from Kuffner: Did anything good come out of the last legislative sessions? And if so, tell me about it.

Whitmire at roughly 0:30 of the interview: [N]othing good came outta the session, except maybe a reality check that we’ve got a lot of work to do, uh, probably as bad a session as I’ve been a part of in the last 30, 38 years in the Senate. Uh, the partisanship is at an all time high. Uh, Patrick totally controls with his gavel. Uh, Senator Democrats are outnumbered 13. They change the rules on us again, so I can spend the afternoon telling you that, uh, it’s bad. It’s really bad, but it should motivate us to organize, organize, organize, register people, to vote, turn out and put a face on the election.

My commentary: Whitmire reviews some of the frustrations he felt with the most recent session, most of which were general comments about what didn’t go well, not specific to his own actions or committees, until this part of his answer. His comment about getting the committee refers to the fact that the Lt. Governor appointed him chair of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee.

Whitmire at 4:49: It, it was a frustrating session to me on criminal justice. I got the committee, but he [Lt. Gov.] pretty much diverted a lot of the hot issues or, or critical issues to [Republican Senator Joan] Huffman who got a new criminal justice, uh, the hell did she call her committee criminal justice, manage criminal justice. Hers is, uh, criminal justice.

Kuffner interjects: Ok, whatever it was called,, what was she working on?

Whitmire resumes: uh her version of criminal justice. Uh, yeah, she, she ran a hard, very tight conservative criminal justice committee. Uh, unlike mine.

My commentary: Whitmire went on for between 7 and 8 minutes and the only specific bills he mentioned were neither those he authored nor those that passed through his committee. He seemed intent upon driving home the point that Republican Lt. Governor Dan Patrick, the Senate’s presiding officer, worked at every turn to prevent Whitmire and other Democrats from advancing any legislation.

Whitmire often points out how much his seniority matters, and is proud of his leadership on of the Criminal Justice committee. But he also explains how the Lt. Gov. essentially undermined his authority by diverting many bills to a committee chaired by Republican Joan Huffman, and overall, by changing the senate rules, created a GOP supermajority that rendered any Democrat’s seniority or past power moot.

Kuffner’s next question, at about the 9-minute mark, turned into more of an introduction to the topic of disaster response with an invitation for Whitmire to respond, which he did. His response details how the Senate operated under Covid, and how tensions rose even higher after the January 6th attack on the US Capitol. Then, on to the February 2021 freeze.

At approximately the 13th minute, Whitmire turns to a specific post-freeze hearing with the ERCOT chair.

Whitmire at 13:06: And then you had the freeze, which we lost a week or two, changes subject matter. And the first hearing we had on that was, uh, a special, uh, freeze ERCOT committee hearing. Hancock, the chairman of business in commerce who got replaced in the middle of the session, cuz he wouldn’t follow instructions. Uh, chair starts it out. We had ERCOT director. And the first question I asked him was about global warming. Had they factored that into their planning da da [sic] Hancock shut me down. He said Whitmire, we’re not taking up global warming issues and I wish it was our first meeting. Everybody’s still kind of feeling himself. I wish I, I would’ve struck back at him and said, well, not now when, because my phone started lighting up and his phone kept lighting up. So we, we joked about later, we, we should have developed that issue from our different standpoints.

My commentary: Once again, Whitmire tries to tell a story about the impact he had in the session, and the impact seems to be that he tried to raise the issue of global warming and how that factors into disaster planning, but that he was shut down by a Republican senator, and then later joked, presumably with that same senator, about how maybe they should have developed that argument “from our different standpoints.” I guess we’ll never know what would have happened had he chosen to keep pushing instead of texting with his Republican colleague.

Whitmire continues at 14:29 after circling back to Covid response after his failure to start a conversation on global warming: And of course I can remember when the Democrats were in charge. I can remember I could run anything on criminal justice I wanted pretty much through the Senate cause they would listen to me, but now your hands are tied.

My commentary: Well, I can remember when I fit into a size 8 black ultrasuede suit from Lord & Taylor, but that was during Ann Richards’ term as governor, and memories of those bad-ass times don’t do a damn thing in terms of what’s going on today.

Kuffner at 16:31: I mean, you’re talking about what the Senate is going to look like going forward. And I mean, you yourself are sort of, you know, one foot in and one foot out you’re, you’re, you’re running for reelection, but you’ve also announced that you’re gonna run for mayor in Houston in 2023.

Whitmire: Well, I’ll have, I will have both feet in the legislature. If I’m fortunate to go, we work daily on Senate issues, constituent services. I still get about 300 prison inmate letters a month, work with their family. So there there’s no way I could do my job. One foot in one foot out. I’m focused on being the best Senator I can be. And my seniority belongs to my district. I really truly really believe that I go there for them. It’s their seniority. And, uh, I should be judged on what I can get done. Sometime it’s through networking, uh, voter suppression, uh, early on, they were going to videotape allow videotaping of voters. And I got up there and did a passionate speech that you just can’t do that you haven’t thought this through. There are human traffic victims, there’s domestic violence victims. They don’t even want anybody to know where they live and you’re gonna videotape where they’re coming to vote. So they struck that down. So experience matters. Uh, there’ll be a time to run for mayor and I’ll plan to do that with the same passion that I, that I run and work in the Senate.

Kuffner: I mean, after this last year, any concern that there might be a whole bunch of special sessions getting in the way of, of running for mayor. I mean, you, you have no control over–

Whitmire: That, obviously. Yeah. But I just won’t let it get in the way, uh, you know, Sylvester [Turner] did had the same model that I have, uh, be a good, and he was very involved that session. I’ll be very involved. That’ll be my top priority. Uh, I’m a public servant. I go where the public needs me and I really, really mean that they’ll need me next session. I’ll be chairing a committee. I’ll be on finance, which is long hours. And then the mayor’s race will begin after the session in, in all earnest.

My commentary: Since Kuffner’s interview, Democrat Chris Hollins has officially launched his campaign. Whitmire doesn’t get to tell people to put everything on hold to wait for him to finish up in Austin.

The mayor’s race isn’t waiting until the end of May 2023 to get started. It has begun.

Whitmire again points out that his seniority and chairmanship will matter, but he has repeatedly up until this point in the interview talked about how the Lt. Governor is going to play an even more brutal level of partisan hardball, how he’ll have recruited even more conservative and doctrinaire senators to fill some of the seats longer-serving Republicans who at least remember the old days of moderate bipartisanship. Nothing Whitmire has said in the interview could lead any reasonable person to conclude that the 2023 session will be magically better for Democrats than 2021.

Later in the interview, Whitmire has some advice a group he refers to as “the GLBT,” by which he means the Houston GLBTQ+ Political Caucus:

Whitmire at 25:26: We’ve gotta get the democratic base fired up. We’ve got to, you know, I was talking to GLBT the other day, they were screening me. I said, you know, we were talking about how we can do a better job of organizing. They need to get a, a sustaining member effort going. I mean, there ought to be a lot of straight folks that are members of the GLBT caucus because equality affects all of us, you know? So, uh, we just gotta organize.

My commentary: I can’t speak on behalf of the GLBTQ+ Caucus – which endorsed him, by the way – and I know that anecdote isn’t the singular of data, and I don’t want to make this about me, but as a straight, white, cisgender woman who has been a sustaining member of the Caucus for a while now, I can confirm that there has, in fact, been a sustaining member program going for quite some time.

Whitmire goes on to point out some other people he feels are letting down the side when it comes to organizing Democrats:

Whitmire at 30:56: We keep waiting for the proud Hispanic population, young, to get registered and vote. Of course, now they’re beginning to vote in the valley and they’re voting the wrong way. So young people have to get involved. Everybody should become a regular voter. You shouldn’t have anybody skipping election, whether it’s young folks or working folks, labor, we talked about at lunch day. They’re just not quite the powerhouse.

My commentary: Also dropping the ball per Whitmire – “Hispanics,” especially those in the Valley, and Labor. Ahem. Ok, then. Well.

My favorite comment has to be when he points out a time when he, himself, was engaged in some rallying of the troops:

Whitmire, at 31:43: It’s been my experience. No one, no community gets fired up like when they’re trying to put a landfill or a batch plant in the neighborhood, in those instances, everybody comes out to the protest rally. So we gotta make these elections like somebody’s trying to put a landfill or a plant in her back door cause people will get fired up, but you can’t get fired up about that and you can go back and say, well, the election and

I can remember 98, Sheila, me and Gene Green, Sylvester, David Pateranella, all the north side folks in the fall of ’98, met at, uh, AAA [Diner] on Airline and Sheila had asked for it, cause she was concerned there wasn’t near the energy in the election. And I finally just spoke up and said, well, why would African Americans be fired up? We’re trying to lock up all their sons. We’re cutting them off every benefit that they need. So, you know, they’ve given up on elections as being the solution.

My commentary: Did you catch that? Hot off the presses! Whitmire met with some other northside Democratic elected officials in (triple-checks recording and transcript) 1998 to address concerns that Democrats weren’t turning out the base.

Nineteen-ninety-eight. 1-9-9-8.

That was 24 years ago – almost a quarter of a century ago. The last millennium.

Well, I can attest to the fact that any meal at the Triple A was memorable, so should we give him the benefit of the doubt? I mean, those biscuits, amirite?

Kuffner followed up to give him the opportunity to talk about some more recent efforts.

Kuffner at 32:28: I’ve been asking everyone that I’ve interviewed as, you know, as a cause we’re all trying to appeal to a Democratic primary audience. What, what are you going to do to help get Democrats out in the fall and win elections? You, you got a lot of money in your, in your campaign, treasury. What, what are you gonna do to help get people out the vote, give recent

Whitmire: John Whitmire: What I’m gonna do, whatever it takes, I’m helping, uh, candidates says we talk, uh, I’ve actually thought about re-instituting back in the seafarers in the nineties, I founded, it is where we had our breakfast. In the fall, the democratic candidates duplicate a lot of their activities. You know, everybody’s got a sign crew. Everybody’s going to this church. So in, in about ’96, I started holding a breakfast, sponsored it, which I’ll do again.

My commentary: Given a chance to mention something more recent than 1998 that he and his massive campaign war chest have done to support area-wide Democratic candidates and organizing, Whitmire swings for the fence and lands in the 1990s again. 1996, to be exact. And speaking of fences, coordinating sign crews just might be a bit lower on the list of turnout priorities than things like hiring paid canvassers, but what do I know?

Anyway, um, sir? Are you ok?

Whitmire, still digging that hole at 34:14: We beat ourselves. Because we do outnumber the other side. If we register and vote and then number two, we to keep her eye on who the real enemy is. Who’s the problem. It’s not, it’s not factions of the Democratic party, but it’s coalition building, you know, black, brown, we got, we gotta let the black and brown community know we’re in this together. Labor’s gotta get fired up. The gay lesbian transgender in the community’s gotta get fired up. If we do that, what am I gonna do? Use my experience, my contacts and, uh, resources to, to pull that off. I just think it’s critical.

My commentary: Hey, Democratic base, did you get all that? If you get fired up, then Whitmire will use his experience, contacts, and resources to help.

Really, I encourage you to listen to the interview in its entirety.

Let me be clear. For a very long time, Senator Whitmire has worked hard on behalf of his district in Austin. He has stepped forward to lead on issues from time to time, and he is a reliable Democratic vote. That’s all great and we appreciate that.

But he is also very loud about the fact that things are different now. That he has been locked in a box and ignored. And in a legislative body where the minority party has very little power, that reliable Democratic vote can come from any Democrat, the Dean or a freshman. So why not bring in a new senator and let her start building her own power base, her own seniority?

Everyone knows Whitmire is focused on his future in Houston. The Texas Tribune reported last November that throughout the 2021 legislative session, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick was already referring to the Senate Democrat with the second-longest record of service, Senator Zafferini, as the Dean-in-Waiting and making references to Whitmire’s mayoral race.

Come back soon for transcription and commentary on the candidate forum, in which, in the words of one person who watched it closely in real time, Molly Cook rolled up Senator Whitmire and smoked him. And now that I’ve watched it and read the transcript several times, I have to say, that’s a charitable description of what happened.

Posted in Houston, politics, progressive, Texas, Texas Progressive Alliance | Tagged , | 2 Comments