Seen through the window of the Oval Office, President Obama gets an update on Ebola in Dallas from Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell on Oct. 12. (AP/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama today spoke with several “frontline healthcare workers” at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas, including some who cared for Ebola patients.
“The President thanked the healthcare workers for their unflagging dedication and for their tireless efforts to treat these patients despite the difficult conditions,” according to a White House aide. “More broadly, he also noted that our nation’s doctors, nurses, lab technicians, and other healthcare staff work long hours under stressful conditions, and are absolutely indispensable.”
Two nurses from Presbyterian Hospital are being treated for Ebola, at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md., and at Emory University Hospital in Atlanta. Both had treated Thomas Eric Duncan, the Liberian who died of Ebola on Oct. 8.
The president will meet later this afternoon with his new Ebola “czar,” Ron Klain. But meanwhile, he wanted to reach out to Dallas healthcare workers.
“He offered his personal thanks to this group on behalf of a grateful nation,” the aide said.
Robert L. Pitman, the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Texas, speaks at a news conference June 4 in Midland. (AP Photo/Odessa American, Courtney Sacco)
WASHINGTON — A Senate committee could vote as early as Nov. 13 on three nominees for lifetime appointments as federal judges in Texas.
That’s the final step before the full Senate decides whether to confirm U.S. Attorney Robert Pitman of San Antonio, Texarkana lawyer Robert Schroeder III, and Sherman Magistrate Judge Amos Mazzant III.
Unless Republicans object, the Judiciary Committee plans to hold the vote when it meets for the first time after the November elections. Under Senate rules, any committee member can postpone the vote by one week.
The Senate votes could come by the end of the year, depending on the timing of committee action.
To be confirmed, a majority of senators must approve of the picks.
At a Judiciary Committee hearing last month, Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz praised the nominees and their qualifications. Both Texas Republicans sit on the committee.
“Each of these three nominees are lawyers of the highest caliber and the kinds of individuals who should serve on the federal bench,” Cornyn said.
President Barack Obama announced the nominations in June, after Cornyn and Cruz recommended them to the White House.
The seat Pitman would hold in San Antonio has been vacant the longest, since the end of 2008. He Pitman would become the state’s first openly gay judge in Texas.
Mazzant would fill a seat in Marshall. Schroeder, a partner at the law firm Patton, Tidwell, Schroeder & Culbertson, is up for a post in Texarkana.
The city of Houston sparked a firestorm when it subpoenaed the sermons of five pastors who led opposition to the city’s equal rights ordinance. Christian conservative groups and politicians, including Attorney General Greg Abbott and Sen. Ted Cruz, denounced the action as an attack on religious liberty. Faced with the criticism, the city amended its subpoenas to remove any mention of “sermons.” But it still seeks “all speeches or presentations related to” the ordinance and a petition drive aimed at repealing it.
Opponents had mounted the petition drive but the city ruled there weren’t enough valid signatures to put the repeal issue on the ballot. Opponents filed suit. The case is set for trial in January.
The ordinance bans discrimination by businesses that serve the public and in housing and city employment. Religious institutions are exempt. Critics complain the ordinance grants transgender people access to the restroom of their choice in public buildings and businesses, excluding churches.
Mayor Annise Parker says the city wasn’t trying to intrude on matters of faith. She says it just wants to know what pastors advised folks about the petition process. But critics are deeply suspicious the Houston subpoena could set up a test case aimed at revoking the tax exemption of religious organizations that advocate political activity the government doesn’t like.
What to make of the balancing act between the city’s effort to defend its equal rights ordinance and pastors who encouraged people to oppose it in speeches and correspondence?
What are the limits, if any, of religious leaders to speak out as a matter of religious faith without facing a government subpoena?
We asked our Texas Faith panel of religious leaders, theologians, academics and faith-based activists what they thought of the clash between faith and politics in Houston. Their responses: diverse and provocative.
“I celebrate the courage of preachers who, like the ancient prophets, become critics of the political system,” said one Texas Faith panelist.
But another said: “Foolish paranoid irrationality aside, the city of Houston does not restrict preachers’ ability to pontificate on why some people should be given human rights, but others should not.”
And there was this: What if they had been mosques? Would Ted Cruz and champions of religious liberty been so quick to ride to the rescue?
If you think there’s consensus – even among those in the faith community – you’re wrong.
Texas lieutenant governor hopefuls state Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, left, and state Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, D-San Antonio, right, shake hands following their televised debate last month. (AP pool photo/Eric Gay)
The lieutenant governor candidates began airing ads Tuesday that pulled no punches.
Democrat Leticia Van de Putte said her GOP rival Dan Patrick is untrustworthy.
Patrick said Van de Putte “wants Washington bureaucrats to run our schools” and is out of touch with Texas parents.
The new TV spots are so-called “contrast” commercials that try to exploit the opponent’s weakness. Clearly, Van de Putte believes Patrick is vulnerable on the $5.4 billion of budget cuts that he and other Republicans approved for public schools in 2011. She also is playing up mostly unsourced media accounts that Patrick is distrusted by many of his fellow Republicans.
In Van de Putte’s ad, a narrator asks, “Which Dan Patrick should we trust?” It then splices two seemingly conflicting snippets of his remarks from their televised debate last month.
In one, Patrick says, “I’m really concerned about the dropout rate in our inner cities.”
In the other, he says of the 2011 session, “And so we cut education.”
Actually, Patrick said the 2011 budget reductions were better than the only alternative, which he said was tax increases. He dismissed suggestions the cuts caused grave harm to schools. He questioned whether there really had been 11,000 teachers laid off. Some of those simply retired, and others were classroom slots filled “by, like, the math department head or various people,” he said.
Van de Putte’s ad segues from a grainy, sepia-toned view of Patrick to herself in living color, working in her pharmacy, greeting constituents and wrapping up her candidacy announcement last fall. It says “party labels aside,” she’s the candidate worthy of trust. A narrator recites how she resisted school cuts, has been a leader on veterans’ issues and has proposed to help more students of modest means afford college.
“I’ll fight for you,” she says in a voiceover.
In his ad, Patrick tries to burn in another contrast.
He says his opponent is “liberal Leticia,” which he is banking on to be politically fatal in ruby red Texas. Meanwhile, the spot says, he’s a conservative pushing “real reform” of schools.
Defying predictions, Patrick has stuck to his hard line on immigration in his general-election ads. And in his latest TV spot, he similarly invokes two education issues that, while they may stir many of the staunch conservatives who dominate GOP primaries in Texas, surely are less familiar and pressing to the November electorate.
They are school choice, a code word for school voucher-like proposals, which he chides Van de Putte for opposing; and Common Core, a national initiative by governors’ and chief state school officers’ groups to define what students should know in English language arts and math at the end of each grade.
Though it’s not a federal government program, Patrick’s ad suggests federal “bureaucrats” dictate the learning standards. Last year, he was Senate sponsor of a bill to ban use of the Common Core standards in Texas. It passed and became law, despite opposition from Van de Putte and five other Democratic senators. In Patrick’s ad, a slide says, “Leticia Van de Putte wants Washington bureaucrats to run our schools.” The spot then cites her vote.
“Washington’s policies have no place in Texas and neither does Van de Putte’s out of touch support for the federal government running our schools,” Patrick spokesman Alejandro Garcia said in a statement on the ad.
Patrick closes his ad by saying to camera, “As Senate Education chair, I passed some of the biggest reforms in decades to improve Texas schools. My education plan will empower parents, teachers and school districts, not government.” Though school districts are governmental units, his last remark apparently refers to the state and certainly the federal government.
Postscript: Patrick’s commercial slams Van de Putte as having “actually voted to stop schools from removing teachers convicted of a felony.”
The ad’s fine print cites a 2011 educator-misconduct bill that Gov. Rick Perry signed. The bill, which Van de Putte and eight other Senate Democrats opposed, allowed removal of teachers convicted of any type of felony. According to a House Research Organization report, the law before 2011 allowed “immediate termination only of a teacher convicted of a violent crime or a crime against a minor,” which omitted “crimes that destroy public trust, such as theft, burglary, and embezzlement.” But teacher groups opposed making any felony grounds for removal. That “could punish some teachers needlessly for mistakes made in their younger years,” the HRO report said, describing bill opponents’ argument.
The former campaign manager and long-time political adviser to Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst pleaded guilty Tuesday to embezzling nearly $1.8 million from Dewhurst’s campaign accounts for five years until his theft was uncovered in late 2012.
One-time Austin political consultant Kenneth “Buddy” Barfield faces a maximum sentence of 28 years in prison on three charges, including wire fraud, falsified tax returns and theft of campaign funds from a candidate for federal office.
Barfield, now residing in Alabama, entered the plea before U.S. Magistrate Mark Lane in federal court in Austin. He refused to comment after leaving the courtroom.
“While working on behalf of the David Dewhurst Campaign and Dewhurst for Texas, Barfield knowingly and intentionally engaged in a scheme to defraud the entities of campaign dollars for his own benefit,” a plea agreement signed by Barfield stated.
“Barfield used the stolen funds to pay for expenses such as his home mortgage, school tuition for his children, personal investments and other living expenses.”
Dewhurst campaign officials said Barfield concealed his theft from the campaign accounts by falsifying bank deposit slips, vendor invoices and finance reports to make it appear that the accounts had far more cash on hand than they actually contained.
In the meantime, Barfield and his side businesses, such as Alexander Group Consulting, were paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for services that were never performed.
Barfield earlier agreed to turn over his lavish West Austin home and various business assets to Dewhurst to settle a civil lawsuit filed by Dewhurst last year to recover the funds. A final judgment executing the settlement was signed by a state judge last November.
Sales proceeds from Barfield’s home, which has been listed at $2.8 million, will be pooled with the assets of Barfield’s businesses to repay Dewhurst’s campaign accounts for lieutenant governor and his 2012 U.S. Senate race. The home was valued at $1.37 million by the Travis County Appraisal District in 2013.
David Alameel raised over $24,000 this quarter. (LM Otero/AP)
WASHINGTON – Democratic challenger David Alameel pumped another half-million of his own funds into his effort to unseat Sen. John Cornyn.
He raised only about $24,000 between July 1 and Sept. 30, according to his latest campaign finance report.
That leaves unchanged the fact that Alameel has self-funded the vast majority of his campaign. In the last three-month period he chipped in over $19,000. He also loaned the campaign $475,000, bringing the outstanding loan balance to $1,225,000.
Since filing to run last December, the Dallas dentist and investor has spent over $5.5 million of his own money, including the outstanding loans.That accounts for nearly all of the campaign’s budget.
Little of that has come during the general election. Since winning the Democratic primary runoff on May 27 against Kesha Rogers, Alameel’s spending has slowed considerably.
FEC reports filed since the runoff show less than $700,000 in campaign expenditures, for such things as staff, events, signs and shirts.
The campaign had $67,530 cash on hand at the end of September.
Cornyn’s most recent financial report is not yet available.Through the end of June he had raised $11 million.
The only debate between Cornyn and Alameel will air on Saturday at 10 p.m. on Univision stations in Texas, in Spanish.
Attorney General Greg Abbott, who’s made much of his role in defending state laws, was asked if he’d have fought for the old Texas law banning interracial marriages.
Abbott seemed to lean towards the answer, “yes.”
The interracial marriage laws already have been kicked to the curb, constitutionally speaking, the governor candidate pointed out to the San Antonio Express News.
“And all I can do is deal with the issues that are before me,” Abbott said. “The job of an attorney general is to represent and defend in court the laws of their client, which is the state Legislature, unless and until a court strikes it down.”
Abbott currently is defending the state’s $5.4 billion cuts in education funding, arguing the Legislature did not, faced with a budget shortfall, abandon its constitutional obligation to adequately fund education.
He is defending the state ban on same-sex marriages, saying the Legislature and later the voters said marriage is between one man and one woman.
Abbott said his job is not to impose his belief system in place of what the Legislature has decreed.
There is a history among attorney generals taking moral stands that might have proved unpopular.
John Cornyn as AG dropped an appeal of a death penalty case and sought a new punishment hearing. He determined he could not defend that particular death sentence in light of an expert witness who had testified that blacks are more inclined to violence. The defendant was black. And he was roundly criticized by some for conceding the case.
And Jim Mattox as attorney general refused to defend a state law that criminalized homosexual conduct. He also was derided for abandoning his role.
Then there’s Dan Morales, who refused to defend the University of Texas law school for using affirmative action in its admission policy.
Abbott’s answer raises the question of whether state attorney generals are obligated to defend stances they believe are morally wrong – such as banning interracial marriage. Or whether being an elected official could mean representing a moral leadership ahead of its time.
Wendy Davis’ political blueprint depends in large part on an getting new voters registered, motivated and to the polls in the November governor’s race. Davis and allies at Battleground Texas promise an unprecedented voter-turnout program. Battleground Texas - which acts as Davis’ field operation - is the product of former Obama campaign operatives who are pledging to turn red-state Texas blue. My colleague Gromer Jeffers Jr. had a story Sunday about how both sides preparing for extensive voter outreach.
Getting new voters begins with registering new people. When the secretary of state last week announced a record-high 14 million Texans are registered to vote, Battleground Texas trumpeted that number as evidence their efforts are working. Not so much, it turns out, according to the actual numbers.
For example, voter-registration in the top five Democratic-rich South Texas counties where Davis expects to do well is up 5.8 percent from the last time there was a governor’s race – slightly better than the average statewide. But voter registration in five top GOP-rich suburban counties is up a whopping 13.8 percent.
The Davis camp hopes for a good showing in Dallas County and Harris County, especially among Democratic-leaning black and Hispanic voters. Dallas County voter registration is up about 5 percent from four years ago. Harris County is up over 6 percent. And voter registration in Travis County where Battleground Texas has a strong presence is up 8.4 percent.
But the real voter-registration increases this election are in suburban GOP strongholds like Fort Bend County (17.5 percent), Collin County (14.3 percent), Rockwall County (12.9 percent), Denton County (11.6 percent) and Williamson County (14.2 percent).
Does that mean Battleground Texas has failed to deliver on its much-ballyhooed promise to register new voters? Not necessarily. In the big South Texas counties they say they’ve targeted, the increase in registered voters is a lot better this year than four years earlier. For example, in Hidalgo County, voter registration is up 7.5 percent from 2010. Four years earlier, when Democrat Bill White was on the ballot, voter registration grew 5.9 percent in from 2006 to 2010. The same thing for Cameron County, where voter registration this time has grown twice as much as it did between 2006 and 2010, the last governor’s race.
Also, registration is only part of the picture. There are lots of voters who are registered but don’t vote — particularly Hispanic voters that Davis needs to win. The Davis political team promises to turn out a record number of those voters – in effect, to change the historic election patterns in Texas. Whether that happens, we’ll know on Election Day. In the meantime, word among some Davis allies is that Battleground Texas might be preparing to defend itself by suggesting they did their work, she was just a bad candidate.
WASHINGTON –The president is dispatching a top aide to Dallas to coordinate Ebola response.
Adrian Saenz, a seasoned political operative from Texas who has worked in Congress and, for the last 13 months, at the White House will serve as the administration’s Dallas-based liaison.
“Saenz will be on the ground in Dallas and in close coordination with senior White House officials involved in the Ebola response, including Ron Klain, the Ebola Response Coordinator,” a White House aide said.
The deployment helps to “fulfill the president’s pledge that state and local authorities are able to call upon any and all necessary federal resources,” he added.
Saenz joined the White House staff in September 2013 as deputy director of Intergovernmental Affairs, leading a team that works with state and local officials. In the 2012 Obama campaign he served as National Latino Vote Director. He was Texas state director for the Obama campaign during the 2008 primary. In 2006 he was national field director for the Democrats’ U.S. House campaign arm. He was a top immigration strategist at Organizing for America, the group that evolved from the Obama campaign apparatus, before joining the administration.
In Congress, he served as chief of staff to then-Rep. Ciro Rodriguez, D-San Antonio, and in other roles.
In other measures, the White House also is naming a Texas coordinator for Ebola response “to ensure we adequately leverage appropriate state-level assets.” Gov Rick Perry has selected W. Nim Kidd, chief of the Texas Division of Emergency Management and Assistant Director, Texas Department of Public Safety, for that post.
The president also has named a FEMA coordinator, Kevin Hannes, to work with Kidd and ensure adequate federal assistance in Dallas. Hannes currently oversees FEMA operations in North Texas.
WASHINGTON — President Obama’s decision today to name a so-called “Ebola czar” to oversee the federal response is drawing scathing reviews from many Texas Republicans — and some praise.
House Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Austin, called it “an important and necessary step to name an Ebola coordinator.” But he said, Ron Klain — a former chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden, a job he also held under Vice President Al Gore — isn’t the right person.
McCaul noted that previous administrations had special advisers on biodefense policy with solid scientific and medical backgrounds. “While the president’s pick may have the ear of the White House and experience from the campaign trail, I am concerned he doesn’t have significant relationships in the medical community that are imperative during this current biological emergency,” McCaul said.
Sen. Ted Cruz blasted the choice entirely.
“We don’t need another so-called ‘czar,’ ” he said in statement. “We need presidential leadership. This is a public health crisis, and the answer isn’t another White House political operative. The answer is a commander in chief who stands up and leads, banning flights from Ebola-afflicted nations and acting decisively to secure our southern border.”
There is no evidence that Ebola has entered the United States through Mexico.
Cruz called for an emergency session of Congress to enact a flight ban.
House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., echoed McCaul’s view. He wasn’t impressed by a czar without a medical background.
“What has been missing from this administration’s response to Ebola is not a new figurehead; what we need is a strategy to get ahead of this, and restore the public’s faith that they are safe,” he said.
