When insiders and political experts really aren't.

One of the funniest, albeit rather new, recurring stories by Texas' Lockstep Political Media is the Texas Tribune's "Inside Intelligence" series.  The premise, in short, is that Ross Ramsey sends out a list of questions to Texas political pros (on both sides of the aisle) who will then regale us with their wit and insight into the Texas political process.  This exercise, along with Paul Burka's annual list of friends/enemies that is the Texas Monthly Best/Worst Of* frequently provides some of the most knee-slapping political humor of any Legislative session.

Occasionally, you have to wonder what the so-called "experts" are thinking when they issue their edicts. You also have to wonder who said it because the blurbs are presented anonymously by the Tribune.  Today's Inside Intelligence has just such a case....

Inside Intelligence: Grading the 83rd Legislature. Ross Ramsey, Texas Tribune

Who were the heroes this session, and who were the goats?

Goats have to include Sen. Davis and Rep. Wu (seriously, we don't need your comments on every bill)

I'm not sure who wrote this but I'm going to guess it was one of the Republican "experts" trying to get a cheap shot in at opposing party legislators.  Left out of this thinking is the reality that both Sen. Davis and Rep. Wu were busy all session positioning themselves for future runs at other offices.

Sen. Davis seemed to have two strategies this session.  One, speak as often as possible on a wide range of issues. Two, get the TLSPM squarely on her side.  On the first, the Senator was very successful.  Not only was she the go-to policy wonk for the TLSPM on a variety of issues, but she doubly succeeded at getting them on her side.  After extensive searching I was unable to find one story by the TLSPM that disagreed with Davis on any single piece of policy.  Rumor is Davis is not going defend her seat and will instead return to local politics for a while (Say, the Mayor of Fort Worth?) to better position herself for an eventual run at a State-wide position.  The leader in the clubhouse is Governor once demographics change and Perry is out of the picture.

Rep. Wu is gunning for the same thing, albeit I think it will even be further down the line for him.  I think he'll serve at least one more session in the Texas House and then make a play for Sen. Whitmire's Senate seat once the latter retires.  After that, if successful, I see him taking aim at Lt. Governor, again when the mystical demographic wave hits and several Democrats are presumed to be washed into state-wide office on it.

Either way it's imprudent to say either of these legislators were goats. They certainly weren't "heroes" of the 83rd as neither of them did much to advance progress in the body politic, but acting in one's political self-interest has a long tradition in Texas on both sides of the aisle.

Another popular choice as a goat was Euless Republican Rep. Jonathan Stickland.  Stickland was a Tea Party Freshman who did his best to upset the apple cart on numerous bills, much to the Twitter enjoyment of Rep. Wu.  While he was unsuccessful in all of his efforts (and on numerous occasions I find myself wondering what he was doing) at least he had the fortitude to stick up for what he believed in the face of defeat.  Compare this to Rep. Wu, whose argument against the bill authorizing some drug testing for welfare recipients was limited to: "It will bring a lawsuit, which we might lose."  Thank goodness Wu wasn't around to cast a vote on civil rights legislation back in the day or Texas might still be segregating schools.

To my mind it still seems way too early to name any Best/Worst or Hero/Goat Legislators because the 83rd Lege is still on-going in special session.  If anything, we are giving out incomplete grades that, at least in Burka's case, were probably preordained before the session started.

Such is the lean of TLSPM today however.  Reporting the news to you filtered, with a healthy dose of personal opinion, often incomplete, and usually truly devoid of actual fact and/or context.

Maybe it's the Texas citizen who needs a shield law from them?




































*Increasingly, Burka's analysis of good/bad/furniture in the Lege seems to be based more around who pays fealty to him and his status than any actual success in legislating.

A quick observation on Texas' LockStep Political Media

I realize the ol' blog hasn't had any updates for a couple of weeks, but life (esp. the paying and family parts) gets in the way of typing thoughts for free.

I would like to make one observation however, regarding Texas LockStep Political Media.


Outside of Burka the Clown, no group has done a worse job covering the 83rd Texas Legislative session than the Dallas Morning News.  Robert T. Garrett has devolved into a gossip writer, Wayne Slater has not only lost his fastball, but his change-up is gone as well (he never really had a working curve that could surprise), Christy Hoppe seems to have no idea what the issues are, much less how to report on them and Karen Brooks Harper needs to go back to the lifestyle section and write articles on fashion trends that few read.

Yes, The Texas Tribune is populated by young staffers who, more often than not, miss the key points behind what they're watching, are continuing their unique obsession to have Carol Alvarado be paid a living wage and are seemingly edited by a spider monkey, but at least they are making an attempt to report it straight, at times.  Jay Root's piece on Sen. John Carona is evidence of that.

I never had any hopes for Hearst's Austin bureau, they have a limited budget, no editors and no indication that they are really into news reporting (their focus seeming to be limited to gathering [and then providing snark to] actual news reported by others). Quorum Report is more interested in getting involved in Twitter flame wars with conservatives than it is actually working on it's product (their website is horrible, and their reporters view Twitter victories as something important), and other news outlets are either too self-involved, or too uninformed to really care.

I guess I have to put the DMN Texas politics team at the bottom of the heap because they're past reporting was (comparatively mind you) pretty strong.  And let's be honest, being a strong political reporter in Texas is like coming in first in a Congressional popularity poll.  The bar is pretty low.

Now that Paul Burka has officially removed himself from the realms of political journalists by basing all of this year's work on personal grudges and unsubstantiated rumors fed to him by political consultants (instead of just most of it, as he did in the past) the DMN is setting the official floor.

At the top?

Taking a page from Ring Magazine, I'm going to declare the belt vacant.  Overall it's been a very lackluster reporting season, and Texans are worse off for it.

Only if you believe good government = more government does this make sense.

The Texas Tribune, continuing their drive to get Texans to pay Carol Alvarado a living wage, raises a question today:

Do Over votes in Texas Legislature raise questions. Aman Batheja, Texas Tribune

The Texas Legislature took three high-profile mulligans last month. Twice in the House and once in the Senate, a majority of lawmakers voted one way on a bill or amendment, only to quickly turn around and vote the other way.

The incidents raise a troubling question: Are lawmakers regularly voting on legislation they don't understand?

The underlying theme is that, due to the Lege's part-time status, our elected representatives are running around willy-nilly casting votes on bills they haven't read, nor do they fully understand.  The obvious answer to this is to greatly expand the Texas government, pay them a competitive salary obviously, and expand them to full-time status.

All of the arguments for expansion (ethics, uninformed votes etc.) lose water when you realize that the US Congress IS full time and they are often worse than the part-time Texas congress in all of these areas.

Sure, it's tough for a news-ish political site to fill the required inches of column space given that the lege is only in session for 3-4 months every two years, but their desire to have more to opine on is a terrible reason to increase Texas government spending by Billions.

There's a reason they call him "Burka the Clown"

Want to change Burka's mind?  Blow in his ear.

Water, water everywhere? Paul Burka, Texas Monthly

Sylvester Turner has been in heavy negotiations with Republicans. One plan he was supporting was to go with a 2 + 2 + 2 bill: $2 billion each for water, transportation, and education. But Republicans have pushed forward with water alone right now. In the meantime, Jim Pitts is concerned about a "nuclear bomb"—that is, attempts by Republicans to fund the water plan with general revenue, which would implode not only HB 11 but the budget. This is not an R vs. D issue; Democrats care about water too.

The next day:

How the water bill dried up. Paul Burka, Texas Monthly

Still, my sympathies in this brouhaha lie totally with the Republicans. Straus and Pitts have bent over backward to restore the education cuts. They didn't restore all of them, but they came pretty close. Now, when the leadership wants to enact its top priority, all they hear from the Democrats is that their priority is more important than the leadership's.

More & more the 'Dean of Texas Political Journalism" seems to be just writing whatever he feels like depending on whom he's angry with at the time of writing.  Yesterday the Democrats were "very concerned about water" and this wasn't a "R vs. D" issue.  Today it's the Democrats holding everything up because they seem to only care only about education.

There's an overarching story to be told about the Texas Lege and the fight over funding. Unfortunately it's pretty clear that no one in Texas' Lock Step Political Media is able, or willing, to tell it.

Burka wants to despise the "bias" of others while keeping his intact

This is more than just a little disingenuous by the "Dean" of Texas Lock Step Political Media.

Area 51. Paul Burka (the clown), Texas Monthly

The debate was a victory for Democrats and pro-school Republicans, but it could easily have turned into a catastrophe for the anti-vouchers forces.

My quibble is not with his conclusion.  Yes, the passage of the Herrero amendment was a victory for Democrats and some Republicans.  The problem lies with Burka's revelation of a bias-slip.  Being pro-voucher does not necessarily make one "anti-school" when you consider the vouchers (as conceived) would still send children to schools, just schools outside of the Texas public school system.  Nor is it clear that a voucher program would "decimate" the public school system, so saying voucher supporters are "anti-education" isn't really correct either.  If anything, the anti-vouchers team is pro-public school above anything else.  In many cases they truly feel that public schools offer the best education, and in some cases (I'll leave it to you to decide which) it's pretty clear that the Representatives are working to preserve a voting base.  The pro-voucher team is similarly split, with many believing that providing students in struggling districts an "out" is a good way to improve education, and some who are just knee-jerk against government anything and are using this view to damage a constituency of the other side.  Again, I'll let you decide who's who.

The problem, well OK one of the problems, is that there are currently two ideas for "fixing schools" neither of which addresses the issue in its entirety.  Vouchers should be a piece of the puzzle, but it should accompany solid plans to reform the education system to make it more responsive to the needs of individual students, and streamline operations, cut waste and put a lid on schools crying poor while spending Millions of dollars on athletics, trinkets and other items.  I have yet to see anyone come up with something other than "Vouchers!" or "Throw more money at it!"  Neither strategy is going to work.

Further down the Burka laugher is this statement:

I would say the TPPF's biases are showing.

Well, OF COURSE they're showing.  That's because TPPF doesn't pretend to be a "down the middle" journalist without an agenda.  Later on down the line he states that "no legitimate think tank would state such obvious bias."  This is just wrong.

Consider two groups.  Texas Public Policy Foundation and Center for Public Policy Priorities.  Both are think tanks, both espouse a certain political agenda, and both openly advocate for that agenda to be adopted politically.  Guess which one Burka (the so-called unbiased political journalist) takes issue with?  If you guessed the one arguing for market-driven, conservative solutions then you would be correct.

Why is he doing this?  Because Burka is a Statist.  It's clear from his writings that he believes in a large government with a very active regulatory hand.  This doesn't mean that he's Democratic or Republican, but it does mean that he is incapable of honestly reporting on one (very large) side of every issue due to his political (not party, some STILL confuse the two) bias.  This would be OK, would he admit it.  Instead he's writing and acting as if he has no agenda, no public policy preference and is only pointing out the flaws in groups that he views to be noticed by "reasonable people". 

Burka, and the rest of the TLSPM, are very big on reasonable.  They also are fans of preferring "common sense solutions" despite often possessing very little themselves.  The problem is not that TPPF is advocating for vouchers and against Medicare expansion, it's that the entirety of TLSPM is reporting on these issues the exact same way, with a negative spin.

You don't have to believe in TPPF's policy positions to understand why this is wrong, but you probably have to be a blind partisan to think it's the right thing to do.  I've said on here, many times, that I'm not a huge fan of the Tea Party.  I believe that they react too-often on an emotional level and that, on most issues, they haven't thought much further down the road than "I hate Guv'mint" and "no taxes".  They often fail to realize that the government has many (specifically identified) roles to play. I think they're easily led and are too willing to back marginal candidates provided they come wrapped in the flag with tax-cut rhetoric flowing from their mouths.  I think tax cuts work at times, but there are also times where increased funding is needed to pay for things like roads, education, water needs etc.  You know, the basics.

The problem, especially with education and on some other issues, is that it's impossible to tell where the real problem lies.  Much of this is due to the TLSPM's refusal to report on these issues honestly.  If Burka is the "Dean" of the TLSPM then he shares a large portion of the blame. 

When politics becomes show business, we all lose.

Much of the media coverage around what should be serious political issues are devolving into Hollywood-style comedies.  Recently there was the ginned-up drama surrounding whether or not political fringe activist (and actress) Ashley Judd would run for the US Senate in Kentucky shortly followed by the news that comedian Stephen Colbert's sister is running for US Congress. The debate on this candidacy is not surrounding her policy positions, but what role the jester is going to assume in the campaign.  And we're already saddled with comedian Senator Al Franken proving, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the US Senate is truly societies least common denominator.

It only makes sense then that Texas Lock-Step Political Media, in true Texas "me too" fashion, has decided that the Texas Legislature is better covered from a pop-culture angle than via serious policy journalism.  Pop-culture drives page hits (and, hopefully, revenue) while serious policy is often passed over by the low-information voter.

Cue yesterday's appearance before the Texas House Committee on Culture, Recreation & Tourism. What should have been a rather minor tweak to the release date of captive white-tailed deer prior to the hunting season morphed into a rock & roll concert where breathless members of the TLSPM decided to revert to pop-culture references and seemingly everyone focused on the "fever" (cat-scratch, get it?) that permeated the room before Ted Nugent took the microphone.  Lost in any of the reporting was the actual issue at hand, the opinions of either side, and their justification for feeling that way.  What we got was Mr. Nugent comparing himself to the late Jimmy Hendrix and something about the soul of hunting etc.

It would be OK if Mr. Nugent's feelings were included as part of the overall discussion of deer hunting. There is no doubt the man is an expert on the matter.  But the TLSPM became so enthralled by his celebrity that they all seemingly forgot to tell the story behind why he was there.  Yes, there were some back-handed slaps to hunting culture (in what writers are now contractually obligated to call the "increasingly urban" State of Texas) and we all know that everyone who lives in a Texas city is now required to view white-tail deer hunting as shooting Bambi in the face, but there wasn't really any serious discussion allowed in the stories where celebrity was king.

Neither is this an isolated incident.  More and more what passes for political journalism is devolving into catty quips about Freshman hazing, personal rants against Michael Quinn Sullivan (who must be hated by everyone reporting in Austin) and one big Governor Perry gaffe watch.  Whether it's Paul Burka telling us that Perry's career is over one day and then deciding he's going to be "Governor for life" the next, or Wayne Slater carrying on his odd Karl Rove obsession, or Gardner Selby writing glorified opinion pieces on PolitifarceTx our media is taking a look down the hard road of serious analysis...and choosing to slap the reader in the face with a pecan pie.

Never mind that, when we DO actually get something that almost reads like journalism, our young, trendy reporting staff either misses the main point totally, chooses to arbitrarily establish 2009 as the Holy Grail for school funding without an explanation as why, or frames the issue in a way that's so slanted the term Newsish had to be invented to describe what they're churning out. 

In all fairness, it's probably not right to blame all of this on Texas Lock Step Political Media.  A large portion of the blame falls to us, the voting public.  Because it's we who have decided that flashy yard signs and large-group identity are more important than actual know-how.  We've asked-for, and been given, the government we deserve.  Is it any miracle than that the for-profit companies who report on it are giving us the type of media coverage we've asked for as well?

"Evolving" on the gay marriage issue.

It's become habit to come on this blog and ridicule Texas Lock Step Political Media for following one meme or another down the rabbit hole in the name of forwarding the dominant message of the time.  Many look at this and choose to dismiss it at "cries of liberal bias" but that's not really the point I'm making.

Well, OK, at certain times it's the point I'm making but not always.  The real problem with the TLSPM is that they don't often think outside the box on certain issues.  Almost all of them choose to view something from a certain perspective and anything that forwards the narrative is promoted to the exclusion of every other point of view.  This is why several members of the TLSPM chose to run incredulous accounts that Gov. Perry and Sen. Ted Cruz were in opposition to same-sex marriage despite the fact that an Internet poll had revealed that most Texans were now "for" it. 

Never mentioned was the fact that public opinion shouldn't matter to the SCOTUS, and there was no mention made of possible Democratic justification for their beliefs.  As a matter of fact, support or opposition of gay marriage has been divided down the lines of a principled belief in civil rights, or outright bigotry and hatred.  Is this a false dichotomy?  Of course, but it is the narrative that the TLSPM has chosen to forward despite evidence to the contrary.

Until now.

Granted, I'm not the biggest fan of Richard Dunham but he got this one right.  And when a reporter does get it right it should be pointed out.  The fact is that, as the polling has changed, many politicians stances toward gay marriage have changed.  The biggest examples of this are President Barack Obama and prospective Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.  Once the polling revealed a political advantage for support, the accolades were sure to start flowing in.

Ironically, many who have long-been supporters of gay marriage (on both the left and the right) are kind of being overlooked due to the headline (and page-view) nature of these "evolution" stories.  At this point it's also appropriate to discuss whether "evolution" is the right term to use.  In it's current use it signifies a significant step forward, moving up the evolutionary ladder if you will, but what we're seeing here is not an advancement forward in the name of freedom, but a realization that one's career could be toast without support based on the current political winds.

I've no doubt that the fervent, pro- or anti-gay marriage activists have come about their convictions honestly. I've long stated on this (and other blogs, forms of social media etc.) that I believe marriage to be a two-tiered contract with one tier being acknowledged by the State and the second being acknowledged by the Church.  You receive a marriage license from the State which becomes your marriage contract.  In many cases the Clergy signs that document which means that the Church has recognized the State contract as valid. Because of this I can find no Constitutional justification for denying same-sex couples to be 'married' in the eyes of the State.  If you choose to categorize this as "support" for gay marriage then so be it.

But the Church also has the right of refusal, just as they have the right of refusal for divorce.  This is why the authority to enter two individuals into a marriage union also lies with others outside of the customary institutions, Justices of the Peace, ship captains etc.  The worry, for me, is that, due to the framing of the anti-portion of the issue as 'hatre-based', attempts are made to remove the Church's right of refusal that has historically been in place.  John Kass of the Chicago Tribune lays out this argument more eloquently than I ever could and displays a perspective of the situation not found in Texas media, often presented by lesser journalists than he.

The problem here is that, even today, the TLSPM and the media control and set the narrative, and all to often it's the one that's in line with their personal political views rather than the narrative that actually is.  Because of this we are allowed only to see supporters of gay marriage as principled culture warriors with right and might on their side instead of the political opportunists that many are.  Conversely, we don't see any principle from anti-gay marriage activists despite the fact that their continued stance against is probably more based on principle than the other side.

Whether or not you're a pro- or anti- reporting of this type should discourage you.  Eventually you're going to be on the wrong side of an issue and it could be you whose cast as the hate-filled Luddite with anti-social behavior. For now, however, the TLSPM river is only flowing one way.

An Angry Man Attempts to Define Conservatism

I present to you Lord, Sir, Hizzoner Paul Burka representing the Order of the Perpetually Angry.

So angry, in fact, that most times it's kind of hard to figure out what he's getting so worked up about.  Granted, these flare-ups are interspersed between spreading unverified (and questionably sourced) rumor and flip-flopping on the political future of Gov. Perry.  On occasion however Burka gets on a crusade, which is what we've seen over the past few days as he ham-fistedly works out a way to define fiscal conservatism in a manner consistent with his Statist leanings.

Therein lies the real problem with Paul Burka.  Not that he's left-leaning or that he seems to have no grasp of the current political reality in Texas (both true). Or that he's constantly surprised when the State outside of Austin doesn't resemble the friendly confines in which he's spent too much time.  Or that he's not especially that gifted of a scribe.  All of these things are true about Paul Burka, who's the epitome of the 'longevity equals expertise' fallacy that's common amongst the members of Texas LockStep Political Media today.

Burka's main problem is that he doesn't contain the mental alacrity to provide meaningful commentary on his political opposites, nor understand the need to frame arguments in context.  For Paul Burka, politics is something that happens every day, and with every newly released poll, in a vacuum.  Take his thoughts on Rick Perry.  Just a few weeks ago (link above) he declared Rick Perry's governorship over, finito, done.  One (dodgy) online poll later and he's ready to declare Perry "Governor for life".  That's not analysis, that's hackery.  Burka didn't even have the ability to ask basic questions about the poll's methodology which render it almost meaningless.  This is the man who's called the "Dean" of Texas political reporting?  Oh....wait, by "Dean" they mean "guy who's hung around the longest and knows the quickest path to the capital bathroom".

Now it seems that Mr. Burka wants to turn his attention to fiscal conservatism and cast it as doing what is good for the government, which must grow to gigantic proportions in order for the State to thrive.  Except this:  The politicians that Burka is choosing to view as "fiscally conservative" (Perry, Dewhurst, et. al.) are really social conservatives who happen to be fiscal corporatists at heart.  This idea that Perry, Dewhurst and Straus (and before him Craddick) have placed the State on firm financial, conservative footing, is just absurd.

A true fiscal conservative would understand that the Governor's Enterprise Fund and the Emerging Technology Fund were nothing more than thinly veiled corporate welfare and should be eliminated, that CPRIT was a fiscal disaster waiting to happen passed under the guise of good public policy and that giving money to Bernie Ecclestone when the DOT is in debt is not a good idea under any circumstance.

And the list goes on and on.  The margins tax, the Trans-Texas Corridor (or, as Lord Dan keeps calling it "The Texas-Trans Corridor") proposing to pay Merck Millions for Gardasil.  It's all a list of non-fiscally conservative trinkets proffered up to friends and campaign donors which have given insulated reporters such as Paul Burka the idea that this is what true fiscal conservatism is all about.

This is why the Tea Party, for all it's faults and misspelled signs, was such a shock to the system to journalists.  They truly didn't understand true fiscal conservatism when they saw it.  It's also why Michael Quinn Sullivan is often on the receiving end of such angry reactions.  His idea that the way to shrink government is to starve the beast is truly offensive to those who are accustomed to being wined and dined on the public dime.

That's not to say that the Tea Parties and Sullivan are without fault.  In my mind they've swung the pendulum back too far.  They're view is closer to 'no government' rather than 'efficient government' but that perception could just because they're juxtaposed with the 'spend all we have, and then raise taxes and spend all of that and then some' Texas Democrats.  Still, the Department of Transportation, education and water are real problems that need to be addressed.  Healthcare is an issue as well, although I do believe Perry will be proven right on refusing to expand Medicare (especially in three years, when the Federal funds sunset) there appears to be little behind those refusals in way of a replacement.  The Tea Party is a lot about "no" but they don't seem to have thought too far beyond that point.

Because of the lack of ideas Paul Burka has found a definitional hole and is attempting to walk through it. In doing so however he's revealing more about his core idealistic deficiencies than he is about those who he's attempting to belittle.  What Paul Burka is, however, is a sounding board for the rest of TLSPM.  You can be sure that his ideas on what fiscal conservatism is will be reported on ad nauseum by the intellectually lazy trying desperately to meet a deadline.

Will it work?  By leaving open the playing field of ideas the fiscally conservative right is telling us that it already has.

Adventures in identification (Part: I'm losing count)

They never cease to amaze me, Texas Lock Step Political Media.  Perhaps this perpetual amazement is a sign of irrational optimism I'm not sure. But every time I check my news feeds I'm dismayed that the arbiters of what passes for truth in Texas politics have gone and done it again.  I'm not sure where in Austin they are meeting to discuss how to identify ideological groups, or what they're drinking when they do meet, but whatever the drink it must have some ability to diminish one's ability for free thinking and intellectual honesty.

How else can you explain Wednesday's constant mis-identification of the Progressive advocacy group Texas Freedom Network from multiple sources, all using what is basically the same descriptor?  If not outright colluding they have to at least be sharing notes right?

First up is Dallas Morning News reporter Christy Hoppe, who has never met a group she considers progressive, choosing to punt, by not identifying them at all, except by name.  Can you imagine her doing the same for the Conservative Texas Right to Life?  Of course not.  It's quite possible that Hoppe either missed the meeting or didn't get the message, because two other reporters in Texas certainly did.  Both The Austin American Statesman's Chuck Lindell and Hearst Corp's Peggy Fikac decided that the groups' self-description as a "watch-dog monitoring far-right issues" was sufficient enough to give readers a clear picture of a group co-founded by Democratic Party activist, progressive and wanna-be (by many Democrats) future Texas (D)Gubernatorial candidate Cecile Richards. That's like saying PeTA is a group that monitors animal issues.  While technically accurate it omits a hell of a lot.  Even the former alternative news publication, and now glorified gossip blog Houston Press Hair Balls had the decency to call the group left-leaning, and even that's wrong.  "Left leaning" is all soft and fuzzy, indicating a type of PR driven Bill Clinton 3rd way approach.  It's the kind of stuff that indicates this is a group that would support work-fare reforms in return for concessions on the minimum wage.

Of course, it's not really all that balanced to identify them to the left of Lenin either.  The fact is most committed communists aren't really communists these days, and the ideals of socialism have been buried underneath the shouting of Hannity and Co. Nor is this group really liberal, a term which has no real meaning any longer as far as modern political practitioners.  Nope, what the group is, is solidly progressive.  Progressive without apology I might add.  And that's OK, because I think it fair for the media to point out when a group is progressive in idealism. Of course, Progressivism has it's own baggage to carry around. Most people think of it as liberalism, which it is most certainly not. While liberalism and progressivism do share some common goals, the "how" between the two is decidedly different. While a classical liberal would be a fan of free trade and a fair and free economy, the progressive is more likely to be populist and controlling.  Where liberalism is/was all about equality (and no Republicans, you are not the linear descendants of liberalism so stop it.) progressivism is actually very elitist in nature.  It assumes that progressive ideals are somehow elevated above others and that only the enlightened few can rule the masses. In a way, it's a humanist yen to theocracy's yang. This, in part, explains why the progressive movement is so hostile to the religious right, both groups want to place their godhead on the throne.

The problem is not with progressivism then, but in how the media are defining progressive groups. In other words, instead of calling them left-leaning how about owning up to the truth by calling them the "progressive Texas Freedom Network"  then follow that up by correctly identifying the "conservative Heritage Foundation" and just leave it at that.  Drop all of the "far-right" or "center-left" nonsense and just call them what they are.

Because here's the problem:  Within the political spectrum "social conservatives", "fiscal conservatives", "social progressives" and "fiscal progressives" are now pretty much all mainstream. (Quick note: being in the minority does not make someone "outside of the mainstream" that's a stupid, silly argument proffered up by partisan spin-doctors who understand that J-school grads with no grasp of real life are going to buy it) By refusing to classify progressive groups as progressive and by classifying everything to the right of Blue Dog ideology as "far-right" Texas' lock step political media is doing the state yet another disservice. It's the type of reporting that leads to the acceptance of ideas like amending the Constitution to limit free speech and the idea that certain Presidents are the nation's daddy. It also does the unfortunate work of allowing marginal candidates to claim their opponents are somehow "outside the mainstream" despite seeing 60% support in pre-election polls.

None of this should be taken as questioning the validity of the poll in question, but it does mean that the group's agenda has to be taken into consideration.  If the progressive greens can disparage polls commissioned by the Oil and Gas industry as biased because of the funding then why can't the other side be offered the same opportunity?  In many cases, it's because the reporters in question have been allowed to get away with burying uncomfortable facts about causes with which they hold some sympathy. If you're so partisan and simple as to believe bias lies in only bashing Republicans and hold up every negative article toward the Democrats as proof of case bias doesn't exist then all of this I just said will fly over your level of understanding.  If you're a Republican who's retreated to the world of Fox News and talk radio you're probably going to miss this point as well.

The secret is not just to insist that all progressive groups are labelled as such, but to insist that conservative groups are as well.  If the media can't get the basic facts such as ideological position correct (and I'm not talking about the silly "non-partisan" disclaimers here, but true ideology) then they might as well give it up and dedicate all of their resources to side-boob shots and star-catching.  Texas media consumers will just have to retreat to the Newsish sites and apply the appropriate filters.

A pair of boobs.

One literal as Chron.com continues to publish skimpily clad Houston women in their continuing onward rush toward irrelevancy. (On another note, if every Houston "big" event requires the objectification of women then I feel better about passing on these things.  And I'm one who's been said to posses "thinly veiled misogyny" by some on the left because they ran an unqualified female candidate for Statewide office to boot so make of that what you will.)

One figurative as Paul Burka continues to take a look at Texas politics and come up with the wrong sets of questions and answers.  It's not that Julian Castro can't beat Dewhurst in a race (although I think it's highly unlikely that he would) it's that Burka is missing the obvious here.

It's not whether or not the "D's" have a shot at Dewhurst it's whether or not any "R's" do.

I'm constantly amazed that Texas' Lockstep Political Media doesn't understand that.  Instead we're given a breathless recap telling us what we already know, Julian Castro is the state's most popular Democrat who one day could possibly make a strong run for state-wide office.

Where have we read that book before?

A more likely scenario, for the next election cycle, is that Dewhurst will spend a lot of resources fighting off a pretty strong slate of primary challengers who will all run sharply to the right.  Who these people are is not being discussed much in the media partly because, in my opinion, TLPM doesn't have any clue themselves who those candidates are likely to be.  It's very easy to sit at your desk, look at a poll and write out a column.  It's much harder to go out and do some field research (especially with the 'other side') to try and determine what is really going on within the state's dominant party.  Doing grunt work such as that is not in Burka's DNA.  It's just not.

Maybe it's time for Texas Monthly to start focusing more on the side-boob?  They already have one boob in full view of the public it seems.

We can do better, we're the 2nd largest State in the Union.

So, about that budget...Paul Burka, Burkablog @ Texas Monthly

I don’t get it.

We know this Paul, we understand that you don't "get" it.  And still you're treated by the State's lockstep political media as some type of political savant, that you know where "all the bodies are buried" and that you understand the inner-workings of Texas bicameral legislature and that you understand what's going on.

Except you don't Paul.  You don't understand what's happened to politics in Texas over the last 20 years, you don't understand how the State works since W left, and Perry took the reins. You've decided to live in an old-school, the-way-we-used-to-do-things-in-Texas, howdy pardner, handshake and a smile bubble and the State has passed you buy.  The thing is Paul, Texas has just come full circle.  Instead of the Democrats dominating state politics within their party, Republicans are now doing the same.  Yes, there are less moderates, in both parties and politics has devolved into a "woe is me" pity party by the supposedly wounded side but, and this is important, it's still the same one-party rule that Texas has experienced since Reconstruction, only the letters behind the names have changed.

To be fair, this isn't all your fault Paul.  Your contemporaries aren't any better.

On one side we have Wayne Slater the Dallas Morning News political columnist with the Karl Rove obsession and a habit of appearing on Current TV, the ultra-left Al Gore founded TV channel that recently sold out to oil-money funded Al Jazeera.  Wayne's current idea of a witty riposte is to throw around the vulgarity "tea-baggers" at anyone slightly to the right of Bill Clinton.  When he's not pimping his next Karl Rove book that is.

On the other side we have Patricia Kilday-Hart the former Texas Monthly cub reporter at the capital who's stepping into the columnist role despite exhibiting no insight that's particularly unique among her peers. If anything, Kilday-Hart learned too well from you.  Believing that things have really changed in Texas when, in actuality, they're much the same.

Oh sure, there's the usual batch of ideological writers, Bud Kennedy fills the role of angry progressive just fine and Ross Ramsey, now writing for the Newsish Texas Tribune, is playing the role of above-the-fray, old-school, liberal just fine.  Republicans, to their detriment, have ceded the public space to you, choosing to retreat to Fox News and Lord Dan Patrick's talk radio channel and that's on them. I don't hold you responsible for the Republicans decision not to communicate.

The big problem with Texas' lockstep political media Paul is that y'all are still living in the agrarian, Democratic controlled historic age while the rest of the State is moving on.  Yes, you pay lip service to Texas vibrancy being in her cities, and much of this is true, but you still want the Texas Lege to run itself in the good ol' boy style where everyone is a friend and policy differences are something to be hashed out in smoke-filled back rooms over a Lone Star while Willie strums his guitar in the corner.  It's not that we still don't like Willie, we do, but politically the State has diversified.

Don't get me wrong, this isn't some slack-jawed "liberal bias in media" rant Paul, quite the contrary.  This is a running commentary on quality, not ideology.  But the point is that you have to at least have an understanding of the majority party mind-set in order to commentate on it in an intelligent manner.  Where you, and your contemporaries fail Paul, is in your inability to do that. In that sense you, especially, have overstayed your welcome.  Maybe it's time to change roles, to write your memoirs. I'm guessing those would be pretty interesting.  Perhaps it's time to let some new blood into the political trough and see what they come up with?

I'm not sure who that would be because, truthfully, the media bench is weaker right now than that of the Texas Democrats, but maybe it's time to get someone in there on a pass/fail basis?  Surely there's someone on the backbench.  Robert T. Garrett of the DMN possibly?

Too often the lament from the media is that people don't pay enough attention to the local politics which plays a very real, and hefty, role in crafting legislation that affects their daily lives.  What the media forgets is that the street runs both ways.  In order to possess information most people need to be provided with information.  Right and left wing blogs, Pay-wall protected inside-baseball gossip sites and political writers churning out the same clap-trap aren't going to get it done. To quote Pogo Possum "I have seen the enemy, and he is us."  By "us" I mean Texas' LockStep political media Paul, and you're the so-called "Dean".

It's time to either step up or move out of the way.  Meaningless analysis like "I don't get it" is a disservice to your readers and Texas.

Its time to jettison Twitter as political reporting tool

Today marks the first day of session for the 83rd Texas Legislature. Historically it's a day for speeches, some unintentional humor, and the election of the Speaker of the House, Senate President Pro Tempre etc.  In short, pomp, circumstance and little else.  This is a day tailor made for the recap blog, for hitting the highlights, for cutting out the mundane,  the boilerplate and  the parliamentary and focusing on what, if any, policy meat could be found.

For example:  The story of the day should have been Rick Perry talking about what are sure to be his legislative priorities. As expected, Perry addressed the fetal pain bill, he talked about school vouchers, and he discussed a laundry list of other issues ranging from water and transportation needs to fiscal restraint and tax relief.  In short, it was exactly the speech that you expected him to give, and one much fuller in policy than Texas lockstep political media has led you to believe he is offering. As a matter of fact, if you listen to the media, all Perry offered was abortion, drug testing for medicaid recipients and tax relief. Sadly there was more attention paid to a sweater vest  and some poor staffer who passed out during the speech  than their was policy.

As predicted, it was the race for Speaker of the House that dominated the media Twitter feeds for most of the morning. (When they weren't patting themselves on the back or continuing to be fascinated by iApple that is.) Once Straus was re-elected by acclimation the tweets of the media then went into policy wonk mode for his speech. It's interesting that Perry, who is very conservative and who the media doesn't like, gets the lightweight treatment while Straus, who's more moderate and well-liked by the media, gets his speech taken seriously.

And this is the problem with today's Texas lockstep political media.  There's not one dissenting voice out there who views things other than through hip, trendy eye-wear from the perspective of a 6th street bar.  It's too monochrome, too one-note, political reporting in Texas is more fast food than haute cuisine, it's flip-flops rather than designer shoes.  It's the easy, rim-shot, laugh in place of thoughtful commentary.

I get that poking fun at Rick Perry is amusing, and can be great entertainment, but I also understand that Perry's office is going to release the full text of his speech online and I can now go to that and read the thing for myself rather than have some folks who don't like him all that much tell me what they want it to say, or focus on what they think is important.

We're to the point, in Texas, that our political media is quickly running out of ways to keep our attention.  There are so many ways for the politicians to reach out to us directly that we really don't need to 5-30 year veteran reporter with their J-school sensibilities telling us what to think on the larger issues.  That's not to say they don't, occasionally, still serve a purpose.  On election day, for instance, they offer an invaluable service. in many ways their summaries of committee meetings can be of benefit, unless the minutes are available for public consumption, then those are out as well.

Most importantly however is that we stop paying attention to them on Twitter because, if we don't, we're going to end up thinking the Texas water shortage was solved by a staffer who collapsed while wearing a aTm sweater vest that was given to Laticia Van De Putte.