Record Partisan Gap in Views of Economic News

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Sept. 7-9, finds that views of economic news are far more positive than they were in August 2011, when 67% said economic news was mostly bad.

Just 15% of Democrats say recent economic news is mostly bad, down from 31% a month ago and among the lowest percentages over the last four years.

Six-in-ten Republicans (60%) say news about the economy is mostly bad, as do 36% of independents. Opinions among Republicans and independents are largely unchanged from a month ago.

Public perceptions of news about the job situation remain negative, but no more negative than during the past few months. About half (52%) say they are hearing mostly bad news about the job situation. The percentage hearing mostly bad news about jobs has been about at this level since June; in March just 38% said the news about jobs was mostly bad.

More than twice as many Republicans (75%) as Democrats (34%) say news about the job situation has been mostly bad. Democrats’ views of job news are less negative than last month, when 43% said the news was mostly bad. Opinions among Republicans (75% now mostly bad) and independents (now 54%) are largely unchanged over this period.

True the Vote’s Spreading Campaign to Intimidate Minority Voters in 2012

As we approach the 2012 election, every indication is that we will see an unprecedented use of voter challenges in an effort to suppress minority voting. True the Vote is a tea party based organization that aims to recruit one million poll watchers around the country this November, to challenge minority voters under the color of protecting the electoral process against vote impersonation fraud — notwithstanding overwhelming factual evidence showing that in-person voting voter impersonation fraud is all but non-existent.

True the Vote representatives say they want to make the experience of voting “like driving [while black, through a white suburbia neighborhood,] and seeing the police following you.

Organization leaders are allegedly prepared to promote extralegal, but not necessarily illegal, measures to exploit election laws in several 2012 battleground states to challenge minority Democratic voters. (click on the map for details)

Bullies at the Ballot Box, a new report released jointly by Demos and Common Cause, reviews election laws of ten battleground states — Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and Virginia — that might be exploited to suppress the vote.

Thirty-nine states allow private citizens to challenge voters at the polls. Of the thirty-nine states where anyone can challenge voters' eligibility to vote inside polling places, only fifteen of them require the challengers to prove that the person they’re challenging isn’t an eligible voter. Which means that in twenty-four states poll watchers can wage all kinds of frivolous extralegal, but not necessarily illegal, mischief to exploit election laws, with accusations — that a voter is an “illegal alien,” or that they are using a dead person’s identity to vote — to burden if not intimidate voters and slow traffic flow through buy polling places.

In states with "voter challenge" laws, the poll watcher's intended roll to guarantee fair elections can be abused and used for racial profiling for no other reason than having a Latino surname or dark skin color. In those states, people can make up a reason to challenge a voter’s rights without any evidence backing them up, and do so with impunity. A new report from the Brennan Center for Justice, “Voter Challengers” details that troublesome history while spelling out just how problematic such poll-watching activities can be, especially when administered by hyper-partisan and racially insensitive groups like True the Vote.

True the Vote, and their many allies, often cite voter fraud as the reason for militarizing the polls, but countless studies have shown that their claims of massive in-person voting voter fraud are nothing more than lies, as detailed in this News 21 investigation. That creates a real danger that voters and election officials will face misguided and overzealous True the Vote poll greeter and poll watcher volunteers, who will take the law into their own hands to target minority voters and election officials — outside and inside polling places.

Obama or Romney: A Key Civil and Women's Rights Supreme Court Decision

by Michael Handley

While there are many issues that should be considered when casting a vote for a presidential candidate, perhaps the most important issue is the Supreme Court. A president's term lasts for a maximum of eight years; a Supreme Court justice's term can span more than 30 years.

Three Supreme Court justices — Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy — will reach their 80s during the next presidential administration. Whoever wins in November will likely have the opportunity to appoint at least one and possibly up to three justices. And remember, it is the U.S. Senate that confirms the president's court appointments. So think about that before you skip the U.S. Senate ballot position, when casting your vote.

The average tenure of a Supreme Court justice today is 25 to 35 years — spanning more than six presidential terms. If the newest justice, Elena Kagan, serves for all of her current life expectancy, she will remain on the court until 2045. If extreme conservatives replace Justice Ginsburg and Justice Kennedy, the Supreme Court will have a solid 6-3 conservative to extremely conservative court advantage over progressive justices.

Women in particularly should care whether Obama or Romney make lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court. Your right of privacy to make your own health care and family planning choices is at stake. If Romney wins, he will certainly nominate extremely conservative justices to appeal to the Tea Party elements within his party. President Romney would appoint conservative justices who support Justice Scalia's position that women have no constitutional right of privacy to choose to use contraception or choose to have an abortion, even when her life is at risk from a pregnancy.

And the constitutionally of the Voting Rights Act at the hands of a solid 6-3 conservative to extreme conservative Supreme Court? Forget about it! How about the rights of individual citizens compared to "corporations are people, too," rights? No contest. And that old Brown v. Board of Education court decision? Welcome back "separate but equal."

The 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision turned life upside down in this country as it outlawed segregation in public schools and provided a road map for the civil rights assault on other aspects of the racist status quo. The 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut decision that women have a constitutional right of privacy to choose to learn about and use contraception is a fundamental cornerstone of women's rights.

The decision on whether the bloody battles over social, reproductive and civil rights, fought more than a half century ago, are again thrust upon us hang on this election. President Romney would without doubt appoint Supreme Court Justices who would turn back the clock to 1954!

Ignore A Letter From The Elections Office And Get Purged From Voting

by Michael Handley

I have received a few emails and calls from friends asking my opinion about letters they or a family member recently received from the county election registrar indicating the office had received information that they were deceased. The letter said that [if they are alive,] they should immediately contact the election office, otherwise they will be purged from the voter registration data base. Thankfully, none of my friends had died or suffered a death in the family.

Statewide, more than 1.5 million voter records could be suspended and eventually purged if people fail to vote or update their voter registration records for two consecutive federal elections: One out of every 10 Texas voters' registration is currently suspended. Among voters under 30, the figure is about one in five. More than 300,000 valid voters were notified they could be removed from Texas rolls from November 2008 to November 2010 because they were mistaken for someone else who moved or died and failed to receive or respond to generic election office form letters.

State and federal HAVA laws require the nation's voter rolls be regularly reviewed and cleaned to remove duplicates and eliminate voters who move or die. This clean up cycle occurs every three months in Texas. But across Texas, such "removals" rely on outdated computer programs, faulty procedures and voter responses to generic form letters, often resulting in the wrong people being sent election status inquiry letters, including new homeowners, college students, Texans who work abroad and folks with common names.

The Secretary of State's office says it contacts counties to purge voters only when there is a "strong match" - such as full name, Social Security number and/or date of birth - between a U.S Post Office, Vital Records Dept. or other agency data feed record and an existing voter registration record. However, each year thousands of voters receive letters to verify voter information or be cancelled only because they share the same first name, last name and middle initial as a voter who died or was convicted of a crime.

Texas Secretary of State Hope Andrade, recently sent lists of possible deceased voters to county elections administrators, totaling almost 77,000 names. The lists contain both “strong matches” and “weak matches” between the Social Security Administration's or Bureau of Vital Statistics' death records and the the Secretary of State's statewide TEAM data base of registered voters. Less than 9,000 of the nearly 77,000 names on list were considered strong record matches. Record matches where social security numbers and some combination of first, last and middle names, plus name suffix, date of birth and possibly other information match, are considered “strong record matches.” "Weak record matches" are where first and last names, plus middle name or initial and some other piece of information, like last Soc. Sec. number digits or county, match.

County election officials across Texas have been mailing "death notification" letters to nearly 80,000 voters on the list. The letters tells voters that they are presumed dead and have 30 days to notify election authorities, if they are alive. Voters who fail to respond will have their registration canceled.

Houston Chronicle - Monday, September 10, 2012:

Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector Don Sumners said Monday that he would not purge from the voter roll before the November election any of the 9,018 citizens who received letters from his office in recent days notifying them that they may be dead and are at risk of having their registrations canceled. However, a spokesman for the Texas secretary of state, the office that generated the statewide list of about 80,000 voters, said Sumners’ move contradicts legislative directives. ”Our office has federal and state requirements to maintain an accurate and secure voter registration list. If any of those people are deceased, the law requires that they be removed from the voter registration list ,” Rich Parsons said. “Mr. Sumners’ decision would prevent that.” The letters, many of which were delivered Friday and Saturday, asked recipients to verify within 30 days that they are alive or be cut from the roll.

Sumners, who also is the county’s voter registrar, said conversations with the Secretary of State’s Office convinced him the list of possible dead was too unreliable to act on until after the Nov. 6 election. ”We’re not even going to process any of the cancellations until after the election,” Sumners said. “Because we’ve gotten such a response from people that say that they are still alive.”

Full Article: Voter purge canceled in wake of faulty death data – Houston Chronicle.

If you have not already received your new yellow 2012-13 voter registration card, you may not be registered to vote in the county where you currently reside. You should immediately check your registration status and take action to properly register, if you find you are not registered to vote in the county where you reside. To check your Collin Co. registration status - click here. To check your registration status in another Texas county - click here. If you find you are not registered to vote, you can find the Voter's Registration application by clicking here.

More details available at Your 2012 Collin Co. Voter Registration Card.

The Courage Of United Flight 93 Passengers And Crew

by Michael Handley

The 40 passengers and crew who fought back against their hijackers aboard United Flight 93 on September 11, 2001 performed a courageous act. The hijackers of Flight 93 intended to crash the plane in Washington DC, likely the Capitol Building or the White House, but never made it because of the determination and valor of the passengers and crew.

President Bill Clinton said at a 2011 ceremony dedicating the first phase of a memorial at the nation's newest national park near Shanksville, Pa., where Flight 93 crashed, "With almost no time to decide, they gave the entire country an incalculable gift. They saved the capitol from attack. They saved God knows how many lives. They saved the terrorists from claiming the symbolic victory of smashing the center of American government. And they did it as citizens."

Ed Felt, my colleague at the Internet infrastructure start up software company BEA Systems, was one of the passengers on Flight 93 that day. Ed was traveling on Flight 93 from BEA's east coast office to the company's headquarters office in San Jose, CA - a flight other BEA employees, and I, frequented.  Ed was one of the top five software engineers at our billion-dollar start up company having just received a U.S. patent in August 2001 for software he designed for BEA.

Flight 93 became an American profile in courage on that day that claimed almost 5,000 lives, toppled buildings that stood like a twin Colossus on the New York shore, took down one side of the Pentagon, and ushered in two wars.

What made Flight 93 different was a decision reached somewhere over the skies of Western Pennsylvania, after passengers learned on cell phones that their hijackers planned to crash their Boeing 757 plane into a building as the fourth in a quartet of suicide attacks.
Here is the story of Ed and the other 39 passengers and crew members of United Flight 93.

Democratic Convention Wrap Up

by Inga VanWagoner, Democratic National Convention Delegate from SD8

Fired Up! Ready to Go! The Texas delegation is headed home, armed with this go to phrase that embodied the final night of the DNC. We experienced a night of high energy speakers, Hollywood A-listers and music stars as diverse as the national delegation gathered to support President Obama. And most inspiring of all, we heard President Obama's acceptance speech!

The DNC reconvened with Marc Anthony singing the National Anthem and James Taylor performed the classic "Going to Carolina" prompting an arena wide sing along. Shortly after, Representatives Barney Frank, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaragiosa addressed the crowd. Wasserman Schultz gave tearful testimony as a survivor of breast cancer and the significance of the Affordable Healthcare Act.

Beau Biden, Attorney General of Delaware made the hearty motion to nominate his father, Vice President Joe Biden, to which the delegation gave a boisterous second and verbal vote to pass the motion. Actresses Kerry Washington and Scarlett Johansson followed a Rock the Vote style showing by the Foo Fighters.

Veterans like myself noted the failure to recite the Pledge of Allegiance at the opening of the night's agenda. We were amazed at the appearance of former Representative Gabrielle Giffords assisted by Debbie Wasserman Schultz to center stage. Giffords led the arena in a joyful recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, which brought many to tears. Also featured were Caroline Kennedy, native Texan actress Eva Longoria, Senator John Kerry and former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, whose rowdy no holds barred speech whipped the crowd into a frenzied Democratic fervor.

Dr. Jill Biden introduced Vice President Joe Biden, who accepted the nomination for VP. And of course the surprise second appearance of the First Lady Michelle Obama brought another chant of "We love Michelle" as she introduced our President Barrack Obama. The crowd shifted to chants of "Four More Years" as he stood, taking in the view of assembled supporters. We stood more than we sat for the duration of his speech as the President listed the numerous points of success in the last four years. A humble moment was felt when Obama quoted Abraham Lincoln saying "I have been driven many times to my knees by the overwhelming conviction that I had nowhere else to go,” promising to continue to do the work to lead our country.

We returned to the host hotel enthralled and emboldened to return home fired up and ready to go, the mantra of Obama supporter Edith Childs. Even as I stand waiting to board my flight home, chants in the airport of Yes We Can abound.

Editor's note: The picture right is of a group of about 60 people gathered for a Convention Watch Celebration at Rugby House Pub, in north west Plano, to hear President Obama's acceptance speech.

2012 Democratic National Convention On Thursday

President Barack Obama at the 2012 Democratic National Convention

---

Vice President Joe Biden at the 2012 Democratic National Convention

Federal Court Stays Injuction That Blocked Restrictive Voter Registrar Laws

A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled 2-1 on Thursday to stay an injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Gregg Costa early last month that blocked enforcement of parts of Texas' new deputy voter registrar laws.

Judge Costa in Galveston had blocked the state from enforcing the new laws rules until their legality can be determined in a court hearing scheduled for next month. But yesterday's 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling allows Texas to enforce new deputy voter registrar laws passed by the 2011 Texas Legislature. Those laws limit who can hand out voter registration cards and who can collect completed registration forms:

1. No one can work in voter registration drives who doesn’t live in Texas;
   
2. No one can work outside any one particular county;
   
3. Payment to registration drive workers must be an hourly wage and compensation cannot be based on the worker’s productivity;
   
4. No completed voter registration forms can be photocopied by the registration drive workers or the registration drive organization; and
   
5. All completed voter registrations must be delivered to county elections officials in person by the deputy registrar.
   

Texas Volunteer Deputy Registrar Guide on the Texas Secretary of State website.

The last day to register to vote in the November 6, 2012 General Election is Tuesday October 9, 2012.

If you have not already received your new yellow 2012-13 voter registration card, you may not be registered to vote in the county where you currently reside.

You should immediately check your registration status and take action to properly register, if you find you are not registered to vote in the county where you reside.

To check your Collin Co. registration status - click here. To check your registration status in another Texas county - click here. If you find you are not registered to vote, you can find the Voter's Registration application by clicking here.

More details available at Your 2012 Collin Co. Voter Registration Card.

Early voting for the Nov. 6, 2012 General Election will run from Monday, Oct 22, 2012 to Friday, Nov 2, 2012 at your usual county early polling locations.

2012 Democratic National Convention On Wednesday

President Bill Clinton at the 2012 Democratic National Convention

---

Elizabeth Warren at the 2012 Democratic National Convention

---

Cecile Richards at the 2012 Democratic National Convention

---

Sandra Fluke at the 2012 Democratic National Convention

Notes From The Democratic National Convention, Tuesday

By Inga VanWagoner, Democratic National Convention Delegate from SD8 ~ pictures by Cindi Koehn, Democratic National Convention Volunteer & SD30 Committeewoman

By Monday September 3rd the Texas Delegation had arrived in arrived Charlotte North Carolina! Despite some travel delays and occasional rain showers courtesy of Hurricane Isaac, we received a warm and enthusiastic welcome from the DNC volunteers. Shortly after landing, we were settled on buses and en route to the Texas Delegation host hotel, Great Wolf Lodge.

Charlotte is on full display this week with art, banners and billboards touting the DNC.

There is a palpable energy in the city as the festivities get underway. This evening's activity for Texas delegates included a welcome reception at the Discovery Place, an interactive science museum noted as one of the nation's best.

Other welcome events were held across the city at 12 notable Charlotte venues including the NASCAR Hall of Fame, where Mayor Anthony Foxx addressed delegates and guests.

Special thanks to Democratic National Committeeman Glen Maxey for diligently posting schedules and updates for us!

Monday morning, your SD8 delegates were up early, checking in to sign our daily credentials and selecting caucuses to attend. Then came uplifting and stirring speeches were delivered by Rev. Jesse Jackson in the African American caucus and Christine Pelosi in the Veterans and Military Families caucus.

We had numerous opportunities to hear from our dynamic DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. I personally was able to meet the oldest delegate in attendance, Mr. Steven Sherman, a decorated disabled WWI veteran, age 91.

A conference call was held for all national delegates, nearly 6,000 in total, more delegates than any national convention in history. Our topic of conversation--answering the question "are we better off today than we were four years ago." Our reply--a resounding "YES!"

Monday evening wrapped with a Texas delegation beach themed party in our host hotel and excited conversations about the convention's call to order.

TDP Chairman Gilberto Hinajosa spoke at Tuesday's delegation breakfast as we prepared to sign our names--one by one--to nominate President Obama to four more years!

The Women's Caucus was an impressive and inspiring collection of voices for the continued advancement of women. Actress Ashley Judd and correspondent Donna Brazille rallied us on after a special recognition of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords.

The afternoon led up to the gavel in by DNC Chair Wasserman Schultz and it began......a evening of spirited, memorable speakers.

Cheers erupted time and time again at the remarks of Mayor Corey Booker of New Jersey, Assistant Secretary Tammy Duckworth and our own San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro. Cheers from our Texas delegation brought Castro's speeches to a pause, as did chants of "USA" and "Four More Years."

The perfect ending to the night was the shining moment of First Lady Michelle Obama. Her emotionally stirring words of family, faith and the foundation she and President Obama built for their own family.

The adoration and respect of Mrs. Obama was never more evident as she waited for the applause and chants of "We love Michelle," to settle. Mrs. Obama led the charge to work these next 7 weeks to work for the re-election of President Barack Obama.

Tuesday evening, the mass of delegates filtered out of Time Warner Arena reveling in the high points of the night's message of "Moving Forward, Not Back."

After stopping at the MSNBC outdoor broadcast to gear DNC Chair Wasserman Schultz review the evening, we, the Texas delegates were gathered again at Whiskey River Restaurant and rehashed our favorite sound bites of the night before turning in for the night.

2012 Democratic National Convention On Tuesday

First Lady Michelle Obama's Remarks
2012 Democratic National Convention

---

Mayor Julián Castro's Keynote Address
2012 Democratic National Convention

Celebrate President Obama's Acceptance Speech

by Deborah Angell-Smith

We invite you to get "fired up and ready to go" for the rest of the campaign Thursday evening, September 6th at a Convention Watch Celebration at Rugby House Pub, in north west Plano, to hear President Obama's acceptance speech. (map)

The Democratic National Convention is getting started, and after a week of wild Republican nonsense last week, it's going to be wonderful to hear truthful speeches from our candidates and supporters.

The pinnacle of the convention will be Thursday night, when President Barack Obama gives his acceptance speech. You'll want to be part of a cheering crowd of Democrats to share the energy and enthusiasm of what is sure to be one of the highlights of this campaign.

We invite you to get "fired up and ready to go" for the rest of the campaign Thursday evening, September 6th at a Convention Watch Celebration at The Rugby House in north west Plano, near Preston and 121. Come whenever you like, beginning as early as 6, but keep in mind that President Obama will speak sometime in the 9:00 hour, so be sure to arrive in plenty of time so you have time to greet everyone, order and eat before the President speaks. The Rugby House has a diverse menu of excellent food at reasonable prices, and Happy Hour specials are extended till closing Thursday night.

Thursday September 6, 2012

6

RSVP

Democratic National Convention Watch Celebration

Rugby House Pub
8604 Preston Rd., Suite 100, Plano 75024
(East side of Preston Rd & South of Hwy 121)

Thursday, Sept. 6,
6:00pm - 10:30pm

Thanks to Texas Democratic Women Collin County and Democratic Blog News for co-hosting this event, and individuals from Drinking Liberally in Plano and McKinney for helping to promote it. Similar events are being held at other locations, including private homes and at least one other restaurant in downtown Plano, Vickery Park. You can find details about all of the Convention Watch, phone banking and other events supporting the Obama campaign at www.BarackObama.com.

Also, be sure to mark your calendars for our next Democratic Network Forum, Saturday morning, September 22nd, when we'll have a program on Voter Empowerment and Election Protection at the John & Judy Gay Library in south central McKinney. We'll send out more information soon, but hope you'll plan to attend and bring some Democratic friends with you.

The Democratic Network offers opportunities for current and future Democratic activists to learn about the issues that affect us here in Collin County, and what we, as Democrats, can do to make things better. We invite your input on topics, speakers, format and other options - and encourage you to get involved in growing our network. If you'd like to add Democrats you know to our distribution list, please let us know.

You can email us at info@collindems.net, or call (469) 713-2031 to leave a voice message.

FOLLOW ON TWITTER

FRIEND ON FACEBOOK

FORWARD TO A FRIEND

Democratic Network Educational Forum

The Labor Union Movement in America

Labor unions are responsible for the many benefits of our jobs that we enjoy today. Even if you only work part time in the worst job possible, you still enjoy at least some of the fruits that labor has fought for. Here are 20 of them.

1. Minimum Wage: Without federally mandated minimum wage, we’d still be working for pennies.
2. Child Labor Laws: Without these laws, children would be hired as cheap labor.
3. Paid Vacations: Did you go on a cruise this year? Perhaps to the Grand Canyon or another country? Thank a union.
4. Employer Health Care, Dental, and Vision Insurance: If you have a medical, dental, or vision care plan through your employer, your a lucky person. All because of organized labor.
5. Pensions: If you were able to retire at 65 and get pension checks in the mail, congratulations, you’re living proof that unions work.
6. Safety Conditions: Do you work at a potentially hazardous job but have safety regulations in place to protect you? If so, unions are responsible for your continued safety.
7. Collective Bargaining: Just having the right to negotiate with your employer is a benefit guaranteed by a union.
8. Weekends: If you have weekends off to spend with your families, a labor union is responsible for giving you that time off.
9. Sick Leave: Did you get to use a work provided sick day to get well? Unions fought for that too.
10. Overtime: Are you able to work overtime and get paid even more for it? Thank a union
11. 8 Hour Work Day: Without unions, we’d all be working non-stop 24/7. Because of unions you’re able to go home and spend some time at home with family and friends before you catch 6-8 hours of sleep.
12. 40 Hour Work Week: Just like number 11, without unions, we’d never have a day off and work would encompass our entire life.
13. Unemployment Benefits: Are you unemployed but receive unemployment benefits to care for your family until you find another job? One word. Unions.
14. Wrongful Termination Laws: Because of unions, you can’t be fired for stupid reasons, like the color of your skin or because you make too much money.
15. Pay Raises: Unions are responsible for your ability to ask for and receive pay raises.
16. Holiday Pay: Do you at least get some holidays off? If so, thank a union.
17. Pregnancy and Parental Leave: In some countries, women give birth on the job and have to go back to work the next day. Corporations would make women do the same thing here if not for the determination of a union.
18. The Right To Strike: We have the right to organize and protest against the government. A union fought for your right to organize and strike against your employer.
19. Equal Pay For Women: Women finally get equal pay for equal work. Thank a union.
20. Laws Ending Sweatshops: Because of unions, sweatshops, which employ cheap labor with harsh conditions, are illegal.

Song by singer/songwriter Turner R. Corn. Turner is a native Hoosier and proud union member of Laborers Local 795 in New Albany, Indiana.

Every right that a worker has in the workplace is all because a union fought hard to get it. As Republicans continue to wipe out unions and weaken them, they also weaken us and our ability to fight back against unfair business practices. We are at risk of losing all the things that unions fought long and hard to secure. Even our jobs are at risk. Because of unions, many of the jobs Americans still hold, have not been outsourced overseas. Unions protect jobs in America and where there are unions, there are jobs.

Because the private sector has largely wiped out unions, big corporations are able to lay off American workers and give those jobs to cheap labor overseas. If you want a job, or want to keep yours, organize or join a union and fight for your right to work. Unions fight for the American worker, therefore they fight for us.

Anyone who says that unions are un-American only wants to get rid of the above list so that they can make ridiculous profits off the backs off a cheap labor workforce. If you support American workers, American jobs, and the continued prosperity of the American people, support labor unions.

TDP Chairman Hinojosa And 5th Court of Appeals Candidates

by Michael Handley

Texas Democratic Party Chairman Gilberto Hinojosa spoke at the party's reception for 5th District Court of Appeals Democratic candidates last Monday. Democrats from the Fifth Court of Appeals District (Dallas, Collin, Grayson, Hunt, Rockwall and Kaufman counties) also heard comments from the five Democratic Fifth Court of Appeals candidates.

Texas Democratic Party Chairman Gilberto Hinojosa
Plano, Tx, ~ Monday, August 27, 2012

The Texas District Courts of Appeals are distributed in fourteen districts around the state of Texas.

The Courts of Appeal have intermediate appellate jurisdiction in both civil and criminal cases appealed from district or county courts.

Like the Texas Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals, Justices of the Texas Courts of Appeals are elected to six-year terms by general election.

The Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas at Dallas includes one Chief Justice and twelve Justices. No Democrats currently sit on Fifth Court of Appeals.

Comments from the five Democratic Candidates running for the 5th Court of Appeals:

David Hanshen for 5th Court of Appeals Place 9 - "Why are the courts of appeals important? Every case out of the Collin County Court House that gets appealed - probate, family, civil and criminal, every case - ends up in the 5th Court of Appeals. Collin County is not the battle ground [for this election,] Collin County is the key. I ran for the 5th Court of Appeals four years ago. I got within two percent [of winning that election.] You can deliver an extra two percent - it's Collin County that is the key. I remember Dallas in 2001 when I ran the first time for Judge; I thought I was the only Democrat. There were three Ann Richards signs in my neighborhood, that was it. In 2006 we came back and cleaned [Republicans] out of the court house and we held it in 2008 and 2010, again. You can do that in Collin County! The Supreme Court candidate four years ago nearly won. There are the Democratic votes here in Collin County to elect Democrats to the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals!"

Larry Praeger for 5th of Court Appeals Place 12 - "When you boil this race down, there are a couple of things you really need to know. In the last presidential cycle the court of appeals candidates in 2008 got nearly 48 percent of the vote. People ask me all the time, what does the court of appeals do? It does basically two things: it tells you if you've had a fair trial and it protects your individual liberties. Lets talk about our individual liberties. The importance of the power of these justices can not be over emphasized. When laws that infringe on individual liberties come out of the legislature are challenged in the court system, it's going to the Court of Appeals first, before it goes to any federal court. So, if you are wondering who is ruling on the constitutionality of those laws, its your appellate justices. I would urge you to go to the Internet and look up the current justices and look at the groups who endorse them and that will give you a clue where they see things."

Tonya Holt for 5th Court of Appeals Place 11 - "It is a pleasure and honor to be here to tell you we are going to do it, we are going to win. We need all of you to get out the vote, and when you go out to vote, take a few people with you. My opponent was appointed by Rick Perry in 2002 and in 2003 Rick Perry appointed his sister. They are so out of order and so out of balance and plain wrong. We can't allow that to continue. You know, people talk about [elections] 2014 and 2016 - now I'm talking about wining in 2012. We need to get it done now! Tomorrow will take care of itself, but we have to deal with today while we're facing it. ... I am a Democrat. I am a Democratic because it is the party of inclusion - everyone is welcome, everyone's rights matter and that is important to me. I fought for civil rights - I believe in civil rights. We can't allow the Republicans in their backward thinking to take away what we fought so hard for."

Penny Phillips for 5th Court of Appeals Place 5 - "Every vote matters! The more that you all get people out to vote in 2012, and vote [for candidates] down ballot, the better chance that we can win on November 7th. So I can't emphasize how important it is for you to help get out the vote. This court - the Court of Appeals - is so important. There was a study that came out in April of this year from the University of Houston Law Review that shows how this court ruled, and how all the Courts of Appeals have ruled. What that study found was that if you, an average citizen, are a plaintiff - if you're the individual person who got wronged by a corporation - and you go through the trial process and win at trial, but that ruling is appealed, then one out of two times - 50 percent of the time - your trial win will be overturned on appeal. On the other hand, when corporations win cases at trial, their wins are only overturned 25 percent of the time across fourteen Courts of Appeals in Texas. And for the corporation win cases that are appealed to the 5th Court of Appeals, only get overturned 14 percent of the time - and those include personal injury cases and deceptive trade practices cases. All of that is to say that we do need balance on this court and it does matter who your justices are who are elected to the appeals court because these cases affect peoples' lives and well being.

Pictures taken at the Reception

Courts of Appeals are where the rubber hits the road for protecting the individual rights that we fight so hard to protect. It's 2012, not 1912, and we are coming up on the 100th anniversary of women having the right to vote in 2020 - we haven't even had the right for a 100 years yet. I want to keep all the rights that we as individual citizens and we as women fought so hard to win and continue to fight so hard to protect."

Dan Wood for 5th of Court Appeals Place 2 - "There hasn't been a Democrat on the 5th Court of Appeals since the 1990's when Republicans took over every seat. Why does that make a difference? You need a diversity of views at the table when these appellate decisions are made on the cases that affect you directly."

In the 2012 General Election five Democratic Candidates are running for the 5th Court of Appeals:

• Tonya Holt for 5th District Court of Appeals Place 11
  
• Penny Phillips for 5th District Court of Appeals Place 5
  
• Larry Praeger for 5th District Court of Appeals Place 12
  
• David Hanshen for 5th District Court of Appeals Place 9
• Dan Wood for 5th District Court of Appeals Place 2
  

Both civil and criminal appeals are typically heard by a panel of three justices, unless in a particular case "en banc" hearing is ordered, in which instance all the justices of that Court hear and consider the case. (Graphical Guide to the Court System of Texas) (map)

Other Democratic candidates who spoke at the reception include:

• Michele Petty for Justice, Texas Supreme Court
• Jack Ternan for Texas Senate District 8
• Lois Parrott for State Board of Education, District 12

Democratic National Convention Watch Party

Texas Democratic Women of Collin County (TDWCC)
Democratic Network
Democratic Blog News

Invite you to join them for a

Democratic National Convention Watch Party

Where: Rugby House Pub, 8604 Preston Rd., Suite 100, Plano 75024
(East side of Preston Rd & just South of Hwy 121)

When: Thursday, Sept. 6, 7:00 pm to ?
(We’ll stay to hear President Obama’s speech)

Cost: Whatever you want to purchase of the Rugby House food/drinks

RSVP to rsvp@tdwcc.org so we have an idea of the attendance number.

Texas’ Long History Against Voting Rights

by Michael Handley

Tuesday, a panel of three federal judges for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia found in favor of a U.S Department of Justice position stated last year that redistricting plans passed during the 2011 Texas Legislative Session and signed by Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) were drawn with the purpose of discriminating against Latino voters.

The federal three-judge panel stops Texas from enforcing its new Voter Photo I.D. Law.  The new I.D. would require voters to present one of a very limited selection of government issued photo I.D. to election officials before being allowed to cast ballots. Approximately 11 percent of otherwise qualified voters overall and up to 25 percent of some otherwise qualified poor and minority groups do not hold any of those specified I.D documents. 

The three-judge panel found that Texas' new law imposes "strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor" and noted that racial minorities in Texas are more likely to live in poverty. In other words, Texas Photo I.D. Law (SB 14) was drawn with the purpose of discriminating against African American and Latino voters.

Under Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the Justice Department or a federal court is required to pre-clear laws affecting voters before they go into effect in jurisdictions with a history of voting discrimination -- and that includes Texas.  The preclearance requirement was enacted in 1965 and renewed by Congress in 1970, 1975, 1982 and 2006.

When Texas was designated as a Section 5 state in 1965 due to discrimination against Latinos and African Americans, it grew increasingly defiant of the Voting Rights Act. According to a report by the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund, “Voting Rights in Texas 1982-2006,” only one state challenged Section 5 in court more than the Texas in that time period—and that’s Mississippi. From 1982 to 2006, Texas registered at least 107 Section 5 objections. Meanwhile, during that same time period, Texas lead the nation in several categories of voting discrimination, including Section 5 violations.

Dr. Martin Luther King and  Coretta Scott King

Texas had far more Section 5 withdrawals, following the DOJ’s request for information to clarify the impact of a proposed voting change, than any other jurisdiction during the 1982-2005 time period. These withdrawals include at least 54 instances in which the state eliminated discriminatory voting changes after it became evident they would not be precleared by the DOJ.”
In other words, at least 54 times in 25 years, Texas had to back down from an effort to restrict the vote—thanks to the power granted the federal government under the Voting Rights Act.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott announced he “will immediately” appeal both federal court decisions to the U.S. Supreme Court ~ and again challenge the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

More:

• Voting Rights Act: The State of Section 5 – ProPublica
• Texas voter ID law can’t take effect - SCOTUSBlog

Texas Restrictive Voter Photo ID Law Blocked By Federal Court

by Michael Handley

A federal three-judge panel, composed of D.C. Circuit Judge David Tatel, and District Court Judges Rosemary Collyer and Robert Wilkins, ruled today against a Texas Photo I.D. Law that would require voters to present photo I.D. to election officials before being allowed to cast ballots. The three-judge panel found that the law imposes "strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor" and noted that racial minorities in Texas are more likely to live in poverty.

Originally set to go into effect on January 1, 2012, the Texas Photo I.D. Law (SB 14) would require voters to present one of a limited selection of government issued photo I.D. to election Judges in order to qualify to vote. The accepted forms of currently dated photo identification are: Department of Public Safety issued Texas driver's license, Texas election I.D., or personal identification card; Texas concealed handgun license; U.S. military I.D. card; U.S. citizenship certificate; or U.S. passport.

Update August 30, 2012 @ 6:30pm - Texas had hoped to enforce the Photo I.D. law for the general election this November. While Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said he will appeal the DC Court decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Associated Press reported late today that Abbott said the appeal process can not be complete in time for the law to be enforced for the election this November.

The issue is whether the 2011 law violates the federal Voting Rights Act by making it harder for minorities to cast ballots. Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the Justice Department or a federal court is required to pre-clear laws affecting voters before they go into effect in jurisdictions with a history of voting discrimination -- and that includes Texas. Texas has the burden at trial to prove that its voter photo ID law, signed into law by Gov. Perry last year, does not have the purpose or effect to deny a minority citizen the right to vote.

Here are key parts of the court's ruling:

President Obama At Iowa State University

by Michael Handley

President Obama kicked off his two-day college tour with a grassroots event at Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa ~ my Alma Mater. (Yes, I am an Iowa Aggie) The President discussed the choice for young voters in this election.

A choice between two fundamentally different visions of how to grow the economy. The progressive choice will ensure that our future workers can afford to get a college degree. Investing in quality, affordable education is a top priority for President Obama -- it's critical to building the skilled workforce needed to drive America's economy, restoring the foundation that will help the middle class succeed and keeping our country competitive for generations to come.

To help give college students and their families much-needed relief, President Obama established a college tax credit worth up to $10,000 over four years of college. He has also eliminated more than $60 billion in wasteful taxpayers subsidies to big banks acting as federal student loan middlemen and used those savings to double our investment in Pell Grant Scholarships. President Obama increased funding for Pell Grants by 95% helping nearly 10 million students in 2011. Romney would cut Pell Grant awards by $830.

A Remembrance Of Molly Ivans On Her Birthday

by Michael Handley

Mary Tyler "Molly" Ivins (August 30, 1944 ~ January 31, 2007)
An American newspaper columnist, political
commentator, humorist and author.

Molly Ivins tells a profound story about John Henry Falk and his childhood friend and what happens when you're so scared you lose your freedom. "When you make yourself less free, all that happens is that you are less free ... you are not safe."

An echo of Benjamin Franklin's warning - "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

Greed and Debt: The True Story of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital

by Michael Handley

The Rolling Stone has a good article on how the GOP presidential candidate Willard Mitt Romney and his private equity firm staged an epic wealth grab, destroyed jobs by sending them off-shore – and stuck others with the bill.

The great criticism of Mitt Romney, from both sides of the aisle, has always been that he doesn't stand for anything. He's a flip-flopper, they say, a lightweight, a cardboard opportunist who'll say anything to get elected.

The incredible untold story of the 2012 election so far is that Romney's run has been a shimmering pearl of perfect political hypocrisy, which he's somehow managed to keep hidden, even with thousands of cameras following his every move.

And Romney ratcheted up the hypocrisy of his campaign even further when he chose Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin as his VP running mate. By selecting Ryan, Romney, the hard-charging, Gordon Gekko like corporate raider of a disgraced yet still defiant Wall Street, is making a calculated bluff – placing a massive all-in bet on the rank incompetence of the American press corps - that he can convince voters that corporate raider style governance is good for America. Romney wants voters to return to the Wall-Street-gone-wild conservative economic governance that nearly threw America into a massive depression by the end of George Bush's administration, in December 2008

OFA campaign video

---

Paul Ryan's speech at the Republican Convention in Tampa last evening was factually misleading.

Even Fox News says his speech was deceptive.

Ryan lied about Medicare. He lied about the Recovery Act. He said a Romney/Ryan administration would protect Medicare even though they plan to turn Medicare into a corporate raider style private insurance voucher program. He lied about the deficit and debt.

He lied blaming Barack Obama for the closing of a GM plant in his hometown of Janesville, Wisconsin -- a plant that closed in December 2008 under George W. Bush, a month before Obama took office.

Mitt Romney pollster Neil Newhouse said on an ABC News program, “We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers.” Will the American press corp fact-checkers hold Ryan and Romney accountable for making blatantly false representations to the American people - paid for with hundreds of millions of dollars from the billionaires and corporate interests that support them?

Rolling Stone by Matt Taibbi

Four years ago, the Mitt Romneys of the world nearly destroyed the global economy with their greed, shortsightedness and – most notably – wildly irresponsible use of debt in pursuit of personal profit. The sight was so disgusting that people everywhere were ready to drop an H-bomb on Lower Manhattan and bayonet the survivors. But today that same insane greed ethos, that same belief in the lunatic pursuit of instant borrowed millions – it's dusted itself off, it's had a shave and a shoeshine, and it's back out there running for president.

Mitt Romney, it turns out, is the perfect frontman for Wall Street's greed revolution. He's not a two-bit, shifty-eyed huckster like Lloyd Blankfein. He's not a sighing, eye-rolling, arrogant jerkwad like Jamie Dimon. But Mitt believes the same things those guys believe: He's been right with them on the front lines of the financialization revolution, a decades-long campaign in which the old, simple, let's-make-stuff-and-sell-it manufacturing economy was replaced with a new, highly complex, let's-take-stuff-and-trash-it financial economy. Instead of cars and airplanes, we built swaps, CDOs and other toxic financial products.

Instead of building new companies from the ground up, we took out massive bank loans and used them to acquire existing firms, liquidating every asset in sight and leaving the target companies holding the note. The new borrow-and-conquer economy was morally sanctified by an almost religious faith in the grossly euphemistic concept of "creative destruction," and amounted to a total abdication of collective responsibility by America's rich, whose new thing was making assloads of money in ever-shorter campaigns of economic conquest, sending the proceeds offshore, and shrugging as the great towns and factories their parents and grandparents built were shuttered and boarded up, crushed by a true prairie fire of debt.

Mitt Romney – a man whose own father built cars and nurtured communities, and was one of the old-school industrial anachronisms pushed aside by the new generation's wealth grab – has emerged now to sell this make-nothing, take-everything, screw-everyone ethos to the world.

He's Gordon Gekko, but a new and improved version, with better PR – and a bigger goal. A takeover artist all his life, Romney is now trying to take over America itself. And if his own history is any guide, we'll all end up paying for the acquisition.

Read more @ Rolling Stone

GOP For Choice Poll: Government Should Stay Out Of Reproductive Decisions

by Robin Marty, Senior Political Reporter, RH Reality Check

While the GOP has ratified a party platform that includes a total abortion ban, and changes the definition of pregnancy, Republicans for Choice has discovered most Americans don't want the government involved.

Via UPI.com:

“Regardless of how you personally feel about the issue of abortion,” the polls, which surveyed 1,000 adults, asks, “who do you believe should have the right to make that decision regarding whether to have an abortion…should the woman, her family and her doctor make the decision or should the government make the decision?”

Predictably, 89 percent of Democrats believed “strongly” that the woman should decide.

More remarkably, 71 percent of Republicans and 80 percent of independents also believed strongly that the woman should decide. An additional 10 percent of Republicans believed “not strongly” that the woman should decide, and a total of 81 percent who identified as “pro-life” responded that the woman should decide.

“We challenge ALL national pollsters to include this main question (Q1) in all of their surveys to test the validity of this outcome,” Republicans for Choice said in a press statement.

The polling makes it evident that regardless of the number who self-identify as "pro-life" versus "pro-choice," when it comes to actually deciding who gets an abortion and why, people want politicians to back out.

From RH Reality Check.

Voting GOP? Just Think No!

NYTimes OpEd by Maureen Dowd

Paul Ryan, who teamed up with Todd Akin in the House to sponsor harsh anti-abortion bills, may look young and hip and new generation, with his iPod full of heavy metal jams and his cute kids. But he’s just a fresh face on a Taliban creed — the evermore antediluvian, anti-women, anti-immigrant, anti-gay conservative core. Amiable in khakis and polo shirts, Ryan is the perfect modern leader to rally medieval Republicans who believe that Adam and Eve cavorted with dinosaurs.

Read Maureen Dowd's full OpEd @NYTimes

Missouri Rep. Todd Akin, Republican Senate nominee and member of the House Science, Space and Technology committee, said two weeks ago that pregnancy from rape was "really rare" because "if it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down." Two words that should never be used together in the same sentence: legitimate and rape. But that’s the way Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) chose to speak about the sensitive topic that has impacted millions of women in the United States in an interview with a local television station.

Last year, Akin joined with GOP vice presidential candidate Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) as two of the original co-sponsors of the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” a bill which, among other things, introduced the country to the bizarre term “forcible rape.”

Ryan, Akin and other Republicans in the U.S. Congress also cosponsored the federal Personhood Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Personhood amendment would outlaw abortion, even in cases of rape, incest, domestic violence and life-threatening ectopic pregnancies. In addition, this change to the Constitution would criminalize in-vitro fertilization and common birth control methods, including birth control pills and IUD's. As Mother Jones reported.

More: The Republican War on Women.

Federal Court Turns Back Texas' Redistricting Plan

by Michael Handley

A panel of three federal judges for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia finds in favor of a U.S Department of Justice position stated last year that redistricting plans passed during the 2011 Texas Legislative Session and signed by Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) were drawn with the purpose of discriminating against Latino voters. From the court's opinion:

The latest Census reports that since 2000 the population of Texas grew by over four million. This dramatic increase required the Texas legislature to create new voting districts for the four seats added to the State’s congressional delegation, U.S. CONST. art. I, § 2, cl. 3; id. amend. XIV, § 2, and draw new boundaries for the state and congressional voting districts to comply with the mandate of one-person, one-vote, see Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461,
488 n.2 (2003). [...]

[...] We conclude that Texas has not met its burden to show that the U.S. Congressional and State House Plans will not have a retrogressive effect, and that the U.S. Congressional and State Senate Plans were not enacted with discriminatory purpose. Accordingly, we deny Texas declaratory relief. Texas has failed to carry its burden that Plans C185, S148, and H283 do not have the purpose or effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

The Justice Department opposed approval of the redistricting maps for U.S. House of Representatives and Texas State House, but various groups and organizations opposed those maps, plus the State Senate redistricting maps.

The judges found that seats belonging to white incumbent members of Congress were protected under the redistricting plans, while districts belonging to incumbent minorities were redrawn such that their seats were put in jeopardy.

All three judges said they were overwhelmed with the amount of evidence showing the new redistricting plans were intentionally discriminatory, writing in a footnote that parties “have provided more evidence of discriminatory intent than we have space, or need, to address here.” All three permanent redistricting plans — for Texas’ congressional delegation, its state House of Representatives and the state Senate — are blocked by this DC District Court decision.

Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the Justice Department or a federal court is required to pre-clear laws affecting voters before they go into effect in jurisdictions with a history of voting discrimination -- and that includes Texas. Texas had bypassed seeking an administrative ruling from the Department of Justice to ask the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to approve the maps.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott announced he “will immediately” appeal the DC District Court decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Developing, more to come... DC Court Finding

On March 1, the San Antonio U.S. District Court three-judge panel, which controls the state's temporary redistricting maps and 2012 election schedule, issued an order that allowed the Texas Democratic Party and Republican Party of Texas to hold their respective County/Senatorial District (SD) Conventions in April and Primary Election on May 29.

Today's DC District Court decision is on the permanent election maps under which future elections will be conducted. Whether or not today's DC District Court decision will have any bearing on the 2012 general election will take a few days, or maybe a few weeks, to sort out. Texas Republicans have said that if they maintain control of the Texas Legislature following the November 2012 election, they plan to redraw (gerrymander) the election maps again in the 2013 Legislative Session, if the DC Court blocks the redistricting plan passed during the 2011 Legislative Session.

The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape

Mother Jones

Rape is only really rape if it involves force. So says the new House Republican majority as it now moves to change abortion law.

For years, federal laws restricting the use of government funds to pay for abortions have included exemptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. (Another exemption covers pregnancies that could endanger the life of the woman.) But the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," a bill with 173 mostly Republican co-sponsors that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has dubbed a top priority in the new Congress, contains a provision that would rewrite the rules to limit drastically the definition of rape and incest in these cases.

With this legislation, which was introduced last week by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), Republicans propose that the rape exemption be limited to "forcible rape." This would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape, many of which are non-forcible. For example: If a 13-year-old girl is impregnated by a 24-year-old adult, she would no longer qualify to have Medicaid pay for an abortion. (Smith's spokesman did not respond to a call and an email requesting comment.) ...

Legitimate Rape: A Music Video ~ Taylor Ferrera sings a song in reaction to Todd Akin's recent comments regarding the impossibility of pregnancy resulting from rape.

"This bill takes us back to a time when just saying 'no' wasn't enough to qualify as rape," says Steph Sterling, a lawyer and senior adviser to the National Women's Law Center.

Laurie Levenson, a former assistant US attorney and expert on criminal law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, notes that the new bill's authors are "using language that's not particularly clear, and some people are going to lose protection." Other types of rapes that would no longer be covered by the exemption include rapes in which the woman was drugged or given excessive amounts of alcohol, rapes of women with limited mental capacity, and many date rapes.

"There are a lot of aspects of rape that are not included," Levenson says. As for the incest exception, the bill would only allow federally funded abortions if the woman is under 18.

The bill hasn't been carefully constructed, Levenson notes. The term "forcible rape" is not defined in the federal criminal code, and the bill's authors don't offer their own definition. In some states, there is no legal definition of "forcible rape," making it unclear whether any abortions would be covered by the rape exemption in those jurisdictions.

Read the full story @ Mother Jones

Read more: Todd Akin, Paul Ryan, and the GOP's latest push to redefine rape.

Framing the Democratic Message

by Michael Handley

At the west Texas summit of Democratic County and Precinct Chairs last Saturday, Bill Brannon, Executive Director of the Texas Democratic Party, told the gathering of Democrats they must stand up boldly and actively counter Republican message frames. He said Democrats can win the hearts and minds of voters by explaining to them that Democratic values are the values that built a strong America and Texas, and they are the values shared by all Texans.

Brannon said Democrats must make an effort to frame policy arguments in a positive context that speak to the core values held by most Texans. Brannon told the gathering of Texas Democrats they must no longer silently accept GOP message frames, like Democrats support "big government tax and spend" programs, such as road building projects. He said Democrats must learn to counter-frame such GOP rhetoric by explaining to fellow Texans that building roads is "an investment in America's and Texas' future."

"We built this country together. We built railroads and highways; the Hoover Dam, the Golden Gate Bridge together. We sent my grandfather's generation to college on the G.I. Bill together. We instituted minimum wage and safety laws together. Together, we touched the surface of the moon, unlocked the mystery of the atom, connected the world through our own science and imagination. We did these things together not because they benefited any particular individual group, but because they made us all richer. Because they gave us all opportunity. Because they moved us forward together as one people, as one nation." ~~~ Barack Obama

Voters cast their ballots for what they believe is morally right, for the things that make moral sense to them. Yet Democrats too often fail to use language that links, or frames, a moral values position with their issue policy.

Language always comes with what is called "framing." Every word is defined relative to a conceptual framework. If you use a word like "revolt," that implies a population that is being taxed unfairly, or assumes it is being taxed unfairly. That's a frame. Then, if you add the word "voter" in front of "revolt," you get a metaphorical frame saying that the voters are oppressed by big government tax and spend programs.

Obama v. Romney Character Narratives In The News Media

A Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism study finds that on the eve of the conventions, the portrayal in the traditional news media of the character and records of the two presidential contenders in 2012 has been as negative as any campaign in recent times, and neither candidate has enjoyed an advantage over the other, according to Pew's study of mainstream media coverage of the race for president.

More of what the public hears about candidates also now comes from the campaigns themselves and less from journalists acting as independent reporters or interpreters of who the candidates are. (How the campaigns are using digital tools to talk directly with voters.)

An examination of the dominant or master narratives in the press about the character and record of presidential contenders finds that 72% of this coverage has been negative for Barack Obama and 71% has been negative for Mitt Romney.

The study, conducted by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism, examined the personal portrayal of the candidate in 50 major news outlets over a 10-week period.

These numbers make this as negative a campaign as PEJ has seen since it began monitoring the master narratives about candidates in press coverage in presidential campaigns in 2000.

Only one campaign has been comparable-2004 when coverage was filled with the controversy over the war in Iraq, the prison scandal at Abu Ghraib and the Swift Boat documentaries. That year, 70% of the personal narrative studied about Democrat John Kerry and 75% of that about incumbent George Bush was negative, numbers similar to now.

Journalists themselves now play a smaller role in shaping these media narratives than they once did. Journalists are the source for about half as much of the statements about the candidates as was the case 12 years go. The campaigns, by contrast, have come to play an ever larger role in shaping these narratives.

The candidates and their partisan allies [using the spectrum Internet communication channels] are the source for nearly a third more of the personal narrative about the candidates than in 2000.

On the eve of the nominating conventions, the discussion of President Obama in major mainstream news outlets is dominated by two narratives assessing his economic record-that his policies have

1. failed to help the economy, and
   
2. that things would be much worse without his actions.
   

Together these two narratives on Pres. Obama make up half of all the statements about his record and character. The negative side of these arguments outweighs the positive in traditional media coverage by more than two to one. The next biggest personal narrative about Obama in the mainstream news media is one that raises doubts about whether the president really believes in American capitalism and ideas of individualism.

On the Republican side, the No. 1 personal narrative about Romney is that his experience in private equity suggests he is a "vulture" capitalist who doesn't care about workers, followed closely by the idea that he is an elitist out of touch with average Americans. The third-biggest personal narrative in the media about Romney is that he is a gaffe-prone, awkward campaigner.

Only some of these narratives, however, seem to be sticking with voters-at least so far. While much of the press narrative has suggested Obama has the wrong approach to fixing the economy, voters are split on whether to associate that notion with Obama or Romney. They are also divided on which candidate believes in American values (though Obama's ideals are questioned more often in the press). The two personal narrative themes that appear to be breaking through to voters are Romney's elitism and his awkwardness on the stump.

Read the full report @ Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism.