I was studying Dallas County election results, and comparing them with Dallas Morning News endorsements, and have come to the unscientific conclusion that nobody really pays attention to our only daily newspaper anymore.

In the Democratic race--the only one we care about--Dallas Morning News made the following endorsements:

Barack Obama did get 61.33% of the vote, but was it the endorsement, or just his phenomenal rallies?

Rick Noreiga received just barely over 50%.

Eric Roberson (TX-32) only received 44.85%, forcing him into a runoff with Steve Love.

Art Hall received the fewest votes among the three candidates for Railroad Commissioner, yielding 24.84% of the vote.

Sam Houston disproved my theory by walking away with 58.93% of the vote.

Linda Yanez was just barely beat in Dallas County by Susan Criss (49.18% Yanyez, 50.82% Criss)

The funniest one is Pete Schulte, Dallas Morning News' pick for Dallas County Sheriff. He came in dead last among the 4 people running for Sheriff, receiving only 11.50% of the vote. Lupe Valdez, who's been criticized from day one for not cleaning up decades of mess in four years, avoided a runoff by crossing the 50% threshold with 50.86% of the vote. She received 116,064 votes, more than the combined total of the three other candidates.

My conclusion: Dallas Morning News is out of touch with Dallas voters. But we knew that already, right?

And then, there were two--in TX-32, there will be a runoff election between Steve Love and Eric Roberson on April 8.

For once, the numbers are on our side. In looking at the polling numbers from Dallas County Elections, I found that Pete Sessions got 28,718 votes in the Republican primary. The Love-Burns-Roberson team got 44,628 votes! In the primary, anyway, TX-32 Democrats have finally outpolled Republicans!

Now, it's up to us to think strategically and pick the candidate who can stand up to Pete Sessions in a debate, challenge him on his supposed "strengths," (patriotism, family values, et al), and beat the living crap out of him in November.

I run the blog Sessions Watch, and have promised the candidates that I will stay impartial in this race.

So I'll leave the decision up to you, the voter, as to which one of the remaining candidates has the better chance to beat Pete Sessions in November.

Let's take a look again at the websites of the two remaining candidates, keeping in mind that our district is so hopelessly gerrymandered that we'll have to sway about 11% of Republicans to crossover and vote with us in November.

Steve Love is a really nice guy. I've talked to him and his wife at several "meet the candidate" events, and they're really nice people. Steve Love is a self-described "life-long Democrat and union member." He's in favor of some issues I care about, like universal health care and a living wage amendment. The only problem is, he's 74 years old and has never held public office before. He's a retired Methodist minister, which is why he's so well-spoken, and why he cares about issues like health care and immigration. I just have one concern about him--is he realistically up to the challenge of serving in the U.S. Congress? To me, age is not a consideration. If Walter Mondale or George McGovern showed up and wanted to run for congress in TX-32, I'd say hell yeah! Either one of those octogenarians could mop the floor with Pete Sessions, and go on to Washington to serve our district, because they've served before. I don't have that same confidence in a 74-year-old who has never served.

Did I mention that he doesn't know what a push-card is? At one campaign event, he was complimenting Eric Roberson on his cards (another thing I just "love" about Steve--he's very nice to his opponents). He said, "That'll fit nice in a legal envelope." Eric explained that these are push cards" and Steve Love admitted he'd never heard of that. Steve Love's strategy is for him and his wife to put full-page fliers on cars in church parking lots on Sunday. Hey, it got him second-place in the primary, right? But is it as effective as assembling a core group of volunteers to hand out push cards at polling places? Pete Sessions sure knows what push cards are, and will be out in full force, come November. (I checked Steve Love's website for a list of endorsements, and didn't see one. If anyone has information on Steve Love's endorsements, please post them--thanks!)

Eric Roberson is upfront about the fact that he's an ex-Republican. I talked to him at length about his former political affiliation at a "meet the candidate" event at North Oak Cliff Library. Eric gave an interesting and detailed account of what it's like to be a moderate in a party that's gone totally right-wing. For one thing, he's pro-choice--contrary to disinformation put out via robo-call by one of his primary opponents. He worked on the campaign of a pro-choice Republican, helping her keep her job from a right-wing challenger. On the "issues" page of his website, he clearly states that Roe v Wade is "settled law" and that abortion opponents should support funding for real sex education and pre-natal care.

Upon leaving school and getting out into the real world, Eric Roberson knew he had more in common with Democrats, but was urged to stay in the Republican Party by one of his legal professional associations, which needed every moderate it could get. The final straw was when the Republican Party put him in charge of "affirmative action outreach," but didn't give him one iota of support.

Eric Roberson also wants to end the war in Iraq. As a veteran, he's well-suited to debate Pete "chickenhawk" Sessions on the errors we've made in Iraq, and how we can bring troops home in 12-18 months. He can also debate Pete Sessions on the subject of torture. As part of his military trainng, Eric Roberson actually volunteered to be waterboarded. He knows that waterboarding is torture, and that the U.S. should not be engaged in interrogation techniques of this kind.

Another thing that impresses me about Eric Roberson--not that I'm taking sides, or anything--is his grasp of economic policy in the U.S. Corporate greed, for instance. As a lawyer, he's defended and won cases for "the little guy" against huge corporations, and knows that our current situation, with CEOs and shareholders making huge profits while workers get laid off, is not sustainable.

As I said, I'm remaining neutral in this race, and I believe if Democrats take a good look at both candidates, we'll pick the right person in the runoff who's not only smart enough to beat Pete Sessions in November, but has the stamina to serve in Congress on our behalf. A list of endorsements is available at this link

Early voting for the runoff election starts March 31, and runs through April 4. Election Day is April 8.

I have a running correspondence with several members of the Dallas Morning News editorial board; mostly, they appreciate my insight, my wry sense of humor and witty repartee.

But for some reason, Rod Dreher doesn't like me.

Maybe it's because I once suggested that he write a follow-up to his book "Crunchy Cons," called "Crunchy Conned--how Republicans played to my fears and made me vote against my own interests."

Or maybe he doesn't like me because of the one time he blogged about "profiling," and how to figure out who's a "terrorist," and I responded by emailing him a picture of himself--which I found on their own blog--holding a "W" coffee mug, with the comment, "I don't know about you, but if I saw this guy coming at me, I'd run the other way."

It was supposed to be funny.

Anyway, last night, I decided to engage in some light banter with Rod Dreher before going to bed.

Is it just me, or does he seem a bit defensive? Why, oh why, doesn't Rod Dreher like me?

(a version of this article is posted at my new blog Sessions Watch ):

Occasionally, Congress will vote on a resolution urging another country to take action on a particular matter--in this case, asking the U.K. for an independent inquiry into the murder of Pat Finucane, a human rights lawyer who was killed in his home by pro-British loyalists in 1989.

On Tuesday, Chris Smith (R-NJ) introduced a resolution supporting an inquiry into Pat Finucane's murder, and the resolution passed with 364 voting yes, and only 34 voting no.

Texas Republicans Michael Burgess and Sam Johnson voted yes to Chris Smith's resolution. Twenty-five members of Congress, including Jeb Hensarling--who perhaps didn't feel knowledgable enough about the case to cast a vote--abstained from voting by saying "present" when their names were called. That's understandable.

But it really makes a statement to vote "no" to finding out the truth about a man shot to death in front of his family. Who on earth would vote no to a resolution like that? Pete Sessions voted no, along with Joe Barton, Kay Granger Ralph Hall and Kenny Marchant.

Collusion between British security forces and loyalist terrorists during Northern Ireland's "troubles" has been proved in one investigation after another, most recently in a report by Police Ombudsman, Nuala O'Loan, the result of a three-year inquiry proving collusion between the Special Branch and the UVF. (For more information, see this article from The Guardian, Northern Ireland Police Shielded Loyalist Killers).

On the heels of the new Police Omsbudsman's report, Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) introduced a resolution supporting an inquiry into the murder of Pat Finucane. It received overwhelming bi-partisan support, as do most resolutions supporting the ongoing peace process in Northern Ireland. His co-sponsors are one of the most diverse groups you'll ever find supporting a bill, including Black Congressional Caucus members Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) and Donald Payne (D-NJ), who always support civil rights in Northern Ireland. Donald Payne served as an International Observer the same year I did, and Eddie Bernice Johnson has made fact-finding trips to Northern Ireland, and of course she voted yes to finding the truth about Pat Finucane's killers.

I'm sure Congressman Smith described for his colleagues in the House how Pat Finucane was shot dead in his home, in front of his wife and children, as they sat together at the dinner table on a Sunday evening. What kind of person would vote no to a resolution calling on the British government to live up to its commitment -- as part of the Northern Ireland peace process -- to implement a public, independent, judicial inquiry into the murder of courageous human rights attorney and activist, Patrick Finucane?

If you ever have a chance to ask a question of Sessions, Hall, Granger, Barton or Marchant, be sure to ask them what they were thinking when they went against members of their own party to say no to finding the killers of Pat Finucane and putting them to justice. If they didn't know enough about the case, they could have voted "present," but they didn't. They voted no. Pete Sessions and Joe Barton are especially vocal about their Christian values. What part of those religious values made them vote no to this resolution?

For information on Pat Finucane, see this article from BBC: Pat Finucane: A Controversial Killing http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_irelan... and visit the Pat Finucane Centre http://www.serve.com/pfc /

For more information on the resolution, see the following roll call information:

H CON RES 20, Roll Call 63, 30-Jan-2007 4:17 PM.
BILL TITLE: Calling on the United Kingdom to establish a full, independent , and public judicial inquiry into the murder of Northern Ireland defense attorney Patrick Finucane. Yea: 364, Nay: 34, "present": 25, not voting: 12).

Bill Summary:

(A version of this journal is Cross-posted at Daily Kos)

Have you ever wondered what your member of Congress does with all the petitions we send? Have you ever wondered if they read all those letters from Move On, PFAW, NARAL, and action items from John Conyers?

Pete Sessions reads everything we send him, but instead of realizing that some of his constituents may be dissatisfied with the Bush Administration, or might have some good ideas such issues as health care or voting rights, he's compiled all our action items into a webpage called Democrats Unhinged.

He has a Top Ten list of "unhinged" things we support, starting with H Res 635:


(Thanks for the publicity, Pete! Anyone who clicks the link on your webpage will see John Conyers' resolution to establish a Select Committee on Administration Predetermination to Go to War.

Now that 60% of Americans oppose the war in Iraq, you're the one looking a bit "unhinged," Pete, for not wanting ask our Prez any questions! By the way, Pete, it's "Democratic" leadership, not "Democrat.")

Following that, Pete Sessions highlights H. RES. 636, the resolution to "failing to respond to requests for information concerning allegations that he and others in his Administration misled Congress and the American people regarding the decision to go to war in Iraq...". (So, let me get this straight, Pete. You guys thought it was your moral duty to impeach Clinton for getting a blow job and lying about it, but when Bush lies about the reasons for getting us into a war, and 2686 of our military personnel are dead because of it, you're ok with that?)

I love this one, number 5 on Pete's list of "unhinged" things that Democrats want:



This, of course is the Medicare for All Act, which:



(Pete, Pete, Pete--you are soooo busted on this one. I remember in the debates with Martin Frost, you talked about your Family Opportunity Act, creating a Medicaid "buy in" for families of children with disabilities. Not to be disrespectful, Pete, but we all know your son has Downs Syndrome and you would personally benefit from passage of this bill, should you--for some reason--lose your job. Basically, you're saying that you want taxpayer supported health care access for yourself and your family, but not for me and my family.)

Check out Pete's website for more of his twisted views, then help Texans in the 32nd Congressional District kick Pete Sessions' worthless butt out of office by giving generously--either volunteer time or money--to the Will Pryor campaign.

(A version of this article is posted at Daily Kos):

John Ashcroft is gone, but his legacy lives on in the form of a “fast track” extradition treaty he signed between our country and the UK in 2003. Usually, treaties between the U.S. and the U.K. are signed between our State Department (not the Justice Department) and the UK’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office (not the British Home Secretary). But in Bushland, anything can happen, even an extradition treaty that applies retroactively, has a loose interpretation of “probable cause,” has no statute of limitations, and leaves the definition of “political exception” up to the prosecutor.

The U.K. has already signed on to their half of the treaty, and Tony Blair’s constituents aren’t too happy about it. On September 7—the same day as the highly controversial John Bolton nomination—the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will vote on whether or not to send this Treaty to the full Senate for ratification. Please contact members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today, urging them to vote “no” on the US UK Extradition Treaty (Treaty 108-23). For talking points and further information, keep reading.


The story so far: the U.K. has signed on to their half of the treaty, and we have not, so right now, we have a “lopsided” extradition treaty with the U.K. The Bush Administration has wasted no time submitting extradition requests for British citizens in connection with white collar crime:


Did you catch this sentence? “The alleged crime wasn’t even a criminal offense in Britain until June 2003...” This is one problem with the proposed Treaty, it applies retroactively. Also, Mr. Norris was also never charged for a crime in Britain, which is also true of the “ NatWest 3,” currently in the U.S. awaiting trial. Blogger Brian Barder sums up the case of the NatWest 3 like this:
U.S. patriots are concerned that the proposed Treaty pays mere lip service to the political exception clause, and has no statute of limitations, which inspired the right-wing publication World Net Daily to ask Could treaty with UK target U.S. founders?



On September 7, the Senate Foreign Relation Committee will decide whether or not to send John Ashcroft’s treaty to the full Senate for ratification. Email them today, and tell them to vote “no” to the US UK Extradition Treaty (Treaty 108-23). (Scroll down for a list of committee members)

For more information, see the ACLU press release Oppose British-American Extradition Treaty and their list of talking points Support Proper Judicial Review for Extradition Requests. There is also further information at my Daily Kos diary Stop Bush/Blair and John Ashcroft’s Extradition Treaty.

Below is a list of Committee members. I’ve put an asterisk beside the names of those who voted for the flag burning amendment, because I thought readers of Democratic Underground would like to challenge these Senators to show how truly patriotic they are. Since they voted to protect the symbol of Democracy, tell them to cast a vote to protect Democracy itself, by voting no to the US/UK Extradition Treaty on September 7.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee (* = voted for flag burning amendment)

Republicans
Richard Lugar *
Chuck Hagel
Lincoln Chafee
Norm Coleman *
George Voinovich *
Lamar Alexander *
John Sununu *
Lisa Murkowski *
Mel Martinez *

Democrats (only 1 voted for flag burning amendment; for the rest, remind them that we actually do have an extradition treaty with the U.K. already, which is good enough to bring any criminals to the U.S. for trial, assuming we have just cause. We don’t need another treaty, especially not one endorsed by John Ashcroft.

Joseph R. Biden
Paul S. Sarbanes
Christopher J. Dodd
John F. Kerry
Russell D. Feingold
Barbara Boxer
Bill Nelson *
Barack Obama

One last thing—this treaty will be voted on the same day as the highly controversial John Bolton nomination, which will grab all the press. Don’t let the media sweep this treaty under the rug! Contact the editor of your local paper and ask them to cover the “John Ashcroft Treaty,” too.

Last night, I saw the film Who Killed the Electric Car, and one of my favorite moments was a clip of President Clinton speaking in front of a panel of oil industry lobbyists.  The camera caught the oil industry executives shifting nervously in their seats, as Clinton recounted a conversation he had with a 5-year-old boy whose mission it was to spend his whole life working on pollution-free engines.  I thought, "Those guys probably want to know the kid's name and where he lives..."

The thought occurred to me that it's big oil--not "Islamic fascists"--who really hate our freedom.

Sad, isn't it, that big oil would rather have our kids fight and die in a war for oil than give up their fat profits? The last thing they want is a nation full of people with flat solar panels on their rooftops, generating their own electricity, plugging in their electric vehicles, and driving free of the internal combustion engine that has been so profitable for big oil over the past century. They want you to think that alternative energy is forever just beyond our grasp, always a project for some future generation. But the future is now, and we can make it happen as surely as we can elect progressives like Ned Lamont, instead of putting up with politics as usual.

I've been following the topic of alternative energy in the news for quite awhile, but didn't become fully aware of the politics behind the electric car until I saw the interview with Chris Paine (director of Who Killed the Electric Car?) on NOW with David Brancaccio. The real problem for the oil industry, it seems, is the highly profitable internal combustion engine.  With an electric car, you're not going to need oil changes--or oil, oil filters, tune ups, and all the "add ons" that go along with the current oil-industry-dependent auto industry.

"Jiffy Lube will go out of business!  What'll we do?"  That's the kind of thinking behind the oil industry opposition to electric cars.

Getting electric cars back on the market is going to take a Herculean people-powered grassroots effort, but we can do it, one letter, one blog, one email at a time--the same way we're going to take back the Congress, the Senate and the White House.

This morning, for instance, I sent an email to General Motors, all excited about the electric cars I saw in the film last night.  I asked how soon I could buy one!  That's one little hand full of "grass seed" I scattered this morning, hoping one little seed will take root in the imagination of whoever reads their email.

I also signed a petition at Plug In America, telling automakers that I want a plug-in electric car of my own.

Then, I sat down to write diaries at both Daily Kos and here, and will encourage my friends to educate themselves on the possibilities of generating our own electricity, and buying electric cars.

For instance, there's a great article about Stanford R. Ovshinsky, the scientist who invented the great, long-lasting Ovonic battery for the electric car, and who is seen in the movie briefly explaining how flat solar panels work.

Here's another article, from MIT, about Ovshinsky and flat solar panels, and if you don't want to wait for GM or Nissan to sell you an electric car, you can order one today from The good news is that the fast, sexy, cool electric car is ready to roll, and you can help put them back on the assembly line right this minute, if all of us take just a minute to spread the word.