Texas Kaos
TAKE TEXAS BACK!TM

RSS Feed
TexasKaos.com FeedBurner


Regional Coverage
Hot Topics
Blogads
Keep your Internet costs Low!  Protect Net Neutrality!

TAKE TEXAS BACK!
A bunch of thieves, thugs, and nutcases took over Texas. Then they used it as a stepping stone to Washington, DC.

They raided our treasury, stripped our schools and handed it all to their corporate cronies.

Y'all ready to do something about it?

We're taking Texas Back. Join us!


Search




Advanced Search


News in Texas

Sloppy Reporting Rears its Ugly Head in TX-Senate Race

by: boadicea

Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 01:51:31 AM CDT


R. G. Ratcliffe got sucked into some very sloppy journalism (Hal at Half-Empty is thinking summer school might be in R.G.'s future).

I confess I was taken aback by the out of context quoting myself.  I should have known better. R.G., while he honored my request to use my pseudonym instead of my given name in the story, got the basic fact of my byline wrong (points upward).

While R.G. is generally too addicted to horserace political analysis for my taste, he's usually a fairly reliable reporter.  For example, he's the one who broke last week's story about Mikal Watts bragging (or pretending) his campaign contributions to an appellate court would make it more receptive to his legal arguments.

But what R.G. let himself be snookered into by Jason Stanford  really takes the journalistic cake.

boadicea :: Sloppy Reporting Rears its Ugly Head in TX-Senate Race
Here's what R. G. "reported":
But then Noriega returned home and told the Texas Broadcasters Association that the blogs are as destructive a force in democracy as talk radio.

"We've seen talk radio become an organizing tool for the die-hard right, while liberals are credited with turning the blogosphere into a political weapon. Each of those media has a targeted demographic group and works them into an ideological lather," Noriega said.

"This, I believe, is damaging to the political culture in this country."

Here's where the hatchet was applied to the literal words used in Rick's speech.

The text of Rick Noriega's remarks to the TAB (courtesy of Kuff). I've bolded the sentence just before the quote R.G. used (or was fed) and  a few lines after:

REMARKS OF THE HONORABLE RICK NORIEGA Texas Association of Broadcasters/Society of Broadcast Engineers Convention Thursday, August 9, 2007, 8:00 a.m. Renaissance Austin Hotel, Austin, Texas

Good morning. I want to thank you for inviting me here today. I am pleased to be here at the annual convention of the Texas Association of Broadcasters and the Society of Broadcast Engineers.

I am especially happy to participate in this Community Service Awards Breakfast sponsored by the Texas National Guard. As you know, I have been a member of the National Guard for over fifteen years. My service took on a new level of sacrifice when my unit was assigned to Afghanistan during 2004 and 2005. While I and thousands of my comrades spent that year in harm's way, our families and friends waited, hoped and prayed. It was local TV and radio stations that told our stories in compelling human terms.

As you know, the war in Afghanistan and in Iraq has placed an unprecedented strain on the Texas National Guard, and on National Guard units around the country. Many units came home briefly and then were sent back without adequate time for resupply and retraining. Meeting our manpower goals became more of a challenge. The Texas Association of Broadcasters partnered with the Texas National Guard by providing airtime and, in some cases, production assistance for our recruitment efforts through the Non-Commercial Sustaining Announcement, or NCSA, program. Thanks to the program, we have met our recruiting goals for the year in only nine months! This is a concrete example of the role and power of the news media in our lives.

Over the last twenty-five years, we have seen astonishing changes in how Americans get their news, from the rise of cable news networks to the arrival of talk radio to learning to breathe in the blogosphere. Although the role of broadcast news programs, both local and national, has changed, broadcasters like you are still the primary source of news for most Americans. As we enter an election year, your role in explaining the candidates, the issues and the stakes will be more important than ever. I want to share with you some thoughts about the role of the broadcast news media, especially at the local and state level, in our public life.

Last year, the Radio-Television News Directors Foundation did a study on the future of news. As part of the study, they surveyed over 1,000 Americans aged 18 and above in May of 2006 and asked them where they got their news. The biggest single source of news for American continues to be local TV newscasts. Over 65 percent of adults said they watch local TV news programs to get information about current events. This is more than double the percentage who say they get news from local newspapers or from national TV news programs. Radio also does very well, with almost 15 percent saying they get news from that source. That's more than the Internet.

Local radio and TV newscasts have broad audiences, transcending age, ethnicity, gender and education pigeonholes. For instance, almost three-quarters of all people aged 18-24 say they watch local TV news, the highest percentage of any age bracket. Among minorities, TV news viewership was at or about 70 percent. African Americans get significant amounts of current events information from radio. This is good news for radio and TV broadcasters, and affirms how important your journalistic mission remains.

The fact that more people get their news from local TV news than any other source is amazing, considering the multiplication of media I mentioned earlier. With options like 24-hour cable news, talk radio, the Internet and dozens of blogs, people have many more choices for getting information.

A big feature of these new media sources is narrow-casting - the ability to tailor information to specific target audiences. We see narrow-casting in marketing. Cable stations that cater to women, for instance, attract advertisers who want to target that market. When Amazon and Barnes and Noble send me an email, they aren't trying to sell me books; they want to sell me a book just like the one that I bought last month.

Narrow-casting has also crept into our politics. We've seen talk radio become an organizing tool for the diehard right, while liberals are credited with turning the blogosphere into a political weapon. Each of those media has its target demographic groups, and works them into an ideological lather while ignoring or belittling others. This, I believe, is damaging the political culture of this country. Let me give some examples of how narrow-casting poisons our public life.

We see it in the dominance of wedge issues in political campaigns. Instead of public conversations about the large issues that are really important - the war on terror, the future of Social Security, education and health care for working families - we get vitriolic tirades over wedge issues designed to inflame a political base and create divisions among people. Whole political campaigns are crafted around the trifecta of "gays, guns and God." For example, when John Cornyn went to the United States Senate occupy the seat once held Lyndon Johnson and John Tower, he promptly held hearings on flag burning. That's right, flag burning. Now, I hate to see our flag burned as much as the next guy, but does anyone here think there's an epidemic of flag-burning sweeping our land?

We see it in the increasing, and frustrating, partisanship in the Congress and our legislative bodies. I was first elected to the Texas House of Representatives in 1998. In the time that I have served, I have seen a complete transformation of how that body works. Former Speaker Pete Laney built consensus by starting in the center and reaching out across the political spectrum to get 76 votes. Now, current Speaker Tom Craddick starts on the extreme right and works toward the center until he finds the magic number. Under Laney's approach, 530,000 Texas children got health insurance through the CHIP program; under Craddick's approach, 160,000 of them lost it.

We see it in the micro-targeting of voters and constituencies. Instead of appealing to what Lincoln called "the better angels of our nature"‚¬ - our common values and ideals as a people - modern political campaigns collect marketing data and run statistical analyses to determine whether that Field and Stream subscriber next door is likely to vote for Fred Thompson, or whether that NPR-listening woman across the street is voting for Hillary Clinton.

We do all this slicing and dicing of our issues, our politics, and our constituents, and then we wonder why voters are turned off and disillusioned by the state of our democracy. Winston Churchill famously said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. And while we cannot make a better form of government than our democracy, we can make our democracy better.

After Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans in August of 2005, hundreds of thousands of people showed up on Houston's doorstep. I coordinated the relief efforts at the George R. Brown Convention Center, where we fed, clothed and sheltered over 7,000 people. Thousands of Houstonians, seeing the stark images of New Orleans underwater and evacuees under duress, donated their time to help out at the convention center and other sites. Thousands more donated food, blankets, clothes and cash to the relief effort.

The events of that September played a big role in my decision to explore a run for the United States Senate. I saw the generosity of my fellow Texans, once they were called to step outside of themselves and participate in their larger community. I saw their genuine enjoyment of and even eagerness for that opportunity. I have seen the effect of our narrow-cast culture on our society and I know I can make a difference. I want to call all Texans to a renewed sense of unity and purpose.

My parents raised me to believe that service to my community was not just a duty but a privilege. That is why, angered by televised images of the hostages in Tehran, I joined our armed forces over 20 years ago and continue to serve in it. That is why I ran for and was elected to the Texas House. And that is why I am exploring a candidacy for the U.S. Senate.

I believe that "broadcasting" - in the largest sense of the word - is an antidote to the divisive effects on narrow-casting. I believe that, as broadcasters, you have a unique opportunity - and responsibility - to inform, educate and even inspire our fellow citizens to participate more fully in our civic life.

You're doing some good things. Most local TV and radio stations cover state and local politics, and some devote considerable resources to doing so. Over the last decade, TAB members have sponsored almost 14,000 political debates and forums, offering Texans the opportunity to see and hear their candidates in real time, away from scripted media events and staged campaign rallies. I hope that trend will continue and even increase over the next fifteen months.

But the media is also guilty of trivializing public discourse. Complex issues like health care for children and immigration are too often reduced to "he said, she said" sound bites. Political campaigns are covered as horse races and slugfests, with little analysis of the differences among the candidates' platforms and their implications for real, live voters. And the most important political and electoral news of the day can be completely swallowed up by the latest Brangelina sighting.

Let's see more in-depth pieces about important issues. Let's see more candidate forums and debates, with opportunities to explore differing positions on the issues in depth. Let's see more coverage of the real-life impacts of political decisions on our fellow Texans.

Our democracy can only function with a curious, well-informed citizenry that feels an ownership stake in society. Throughout history, democracies have created a space where people can get together, exchange information, debate issues and make decisions for the good of the community. In ancient Greece, the Agora was the place set aside for the community. In colonial New England, many towns were laid out with a village commons, an area that belonged to no one and to everyone in the community. In our modern world, broadcast radio and TV play these important roles. I salute you on the work you already do and challenge you to do even better as we enter the next exciting year for our communities, our state and our nation.

Boy, what a difference a few sentence make.  Turning a call for an end to wedging and a strengthening of public discourse to unite people into a chance to wedge Rick from his base and continue the sort of inflammatory debate that Mikal Watts displayed in that ill-advised letter.

Wonder if it was R.G. or Jason who decided to play the out of context game?

Look, it was clumsy wording and gave Jason his opening to pretend night was day and a netroots candidate was really not one.  We're likely to be in for a lot more of these tests. Watts offers a brittle candidacy of pseudo-Republican talking points and a self-funder's deep pockets. If that was all it took to be elected in Texas, we'd have re-elected Gov Tony Sanchez last year. 

So they'll be trying to distract us, and smear Rick, all the while decrying the nasty mudflinging they're surreptitiously taking part in by whisper campaigns and working the traditional media "refs" to get as much false equivalency into print as they can.

As Tx Sharon says on her own blog, Bluedaze, read the comments from both Rick and his wife, Houston Councilwoman Melissa Noriega, here.

Does that seem like a candidate who doesn't have a positive view of blogs and bloggers?

The Noriega campaign and the bloggers who are supporting Rick need to tighten up our communication loops so we minimize the opportunities our opposition-either in the primary or the upcoming general election-have to throw us into disarray.

Upon reflection, this gambit shows that the Watts campaign is a bit desperate to wedge Rick's campaign from his broadbased on-line support.  Howie Klein explained how Rick got the attention of Blue America:

Half a dozen Texas bloggers talked to me over the last 3 months about Rick and explained the kind of leader he has been in the state legislature and why it is crucial to get a real progressive like Rick into the race against Cornyn instead of some middle of the road establishment Democrat who doesn't even know if he's pro-choice of not. Without the Texas bloggers, we would never have been following Rick's race so early. I wish every state had such on top of it local blogger/activists.

All in all, this is an opportunity to see if the Texroots can stand strong with a solid candidate and move forward, or if we'll be bamboozled and stampeded like, well, traditional media has a tendency to do.

For my part, count me in the McBlogger corner:

In a speech written by Noriega's primary consultant, James Aldrete, he characterized SOME bloggers as being as divisive as Right Wing talk radio. We know this to be true because we feel the same way. Reading any of a number of national blogs like Michelle Malkin and The Red State, we can see the divisiveness from the right pouring in along with a helping of abuse and solution-free rhetoric. We also can not argue with his desire to call out Senator Cornyn for using divisive wedge issues that serve only to detract from the important issues the next Senator from Texas will have to face.

This is exactly why we are supporting Rick.

While Mr. Aldrete may not have defined the 'blogs' closely enough in the speech, we do know that was the intent, to talk about Cornyn's divisiveness and poor leadership. We honestly can't believe any reporter in the MSM would have been foolish enough to run with a story being pimped by a simple political operative who pretends that there's nothing to see in the story of the overwhelming silence of the pro-Watts online support.

It's no surprise the Watts campaign downplays the online outreach aspect of their campaign. Essentially, they have none. Simply a mechanism for releasing press releases on line through an 'online outreach coordinator' and a cadre of commenter's who can't even be bothered to write entire blogposts in support of a candidate.

Rick will be on Firedoglake tomorrow afternoon.  If you have any questions or concerns, please take  the opportunity to ask him.  Just remember, Rick's record, his actions,  and his desire to serve Texas in the United States Senate are the same today as they were before the hatchet job was launched.

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
We can't get distracted... (4.00 / 1)
...by the wedge tactics Noriega opponents may pull, whether by this character Stanford, the Watts campaign, or (eventually) the Republicans (who will sure try their hand). It's good that Rick is getting in front of this before it gets out of hand.

While I agree with everything you say here.... (4.00 / 1)
the truth is that the sentence, "liberals are credited with turning the blogosphere into a political weapon" should never have made it into Rick's speech.  It would not have been a very difficult task to differentiate between blogs that promote truth and blogs that promote divisiveness.  He does so in the overall speech but for some reason attaches the liberal tag to blogs at the beginning.

You can blame Jason and RG all you want but the fact is James gave Jason an opening which he capitalized on.  He sold the story and the angle to RG.  Reporters live off of angles and scoops, the less work for the reporter the better.  You need only to look at the lies spread about Al Gore to see how this works.  That is the game.  If you can't get the press on your side, you will not get the voters.

It might be that Rick or James would do well to pick up a couple of proofreaders from the blogosphere to help out and make sure that no more poorly written speeches such as this one make it out into general circulation. 

There is  certainly not any shortage of talented writers/editors out here on the internets.

"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."

Albert Einstein


Don't get me wrong (0.00 / 0)
That message has been conveyed, and I believe it is understood by the campaign.

If you have a chance, check out the FDL chat this afternoon.  I think that it will go a long way toward reassuring the netroots that Noriega will indeed have our back in future.

We all need to bring our A-game in order to defeat Junior John.

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.


[ Parent ]
Just an aside... (0.00 / 0)
Rick is up to 723 donors on ActBlue.

77 more before the 30th to reach the goal.

Rick Noriega's ActBlue Page

We have to become the leaders we seek.
-boadicea
There is not a sport invented that matches Texas politics for contact, blood or gratuitous violence.
-Harvey Kronberg


FDL Chat is THIS afternoon (0.00 / 0)
3 p.m. Central time, I believe.

I just wanted to clarify, since I wrote this before I went to bed at 3 a.m., so technically, the same day as the chat.

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.


picture = Xwords (4.00 / 1)
Rick live blogging at Yearly Kos


Barnett Shale: An Insatiable Thirst

My blog Bluedaze



Won't Get Fooled Again? (0.00 / 0)
I've been looking at Noriega and he looks like a progressive, but then again, I sent money to & talked to voters in District 22 for Nick Lampson starting late 2004 and am very disappointed in what he has done so far. I expected Ciro Rodriguez to be a "Bush Dog" but I certainly didn't expect Mr. Lampson to be one. Yeah, I'll be looking at FDL tomorrow, but I've had my fill of "thanx for the money now scram, chump".

Understandable reaction. (0.00 / 0)
And the FDL chat is going on right now.

If you have a few minutes, pop on over there and ask Rick your question yourself.


Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.


[ Parent ]
even-keeled (0.00 / 0)
While R.G. is generally too addicted to horserace political analysis for my taste, he's usually a fairly reliable reporter.  For example, he's the one who broke last week's story about Mikal Watts bragging (or pretending) his campaign contributions to an appellate court would make it more receptive to his legal arguments.

But what R.G. let himself be snookered into by Jason Stanford really takes the journalistic cake.

Just checking -- did you just cite a Noriega staffer on the bit about R.G.'s story being some arbitrary smear that he surmises comes from Jason Stanford?

And are you saying that in one smear case, R.G. was a good reporter, and in the other, he was taking a piece out of context?  And the "good" was two or three lines out of a 9-page opinion?

If we're going to talk about the fairness of taking things in context, we should at least be consistent, shouldn't we?

For that matter, I suppose we should even take R.G.'s statements in their context, to be fair.  After all, the "hatchet job" cited above was not the story he ran.  What immediately followed the cited quote:

Noriega spokesman James Aldrete said Noriega was not criticizing all politically active blogs, just those that engage in the "politics of division." Aldrete said Noriega believes talk radio and some bloggers would rather keep the country divided than find solutions to problems.

Doesn't sound much like a hatchet job to me.  In fact, it sounds to me like he did a perfectly fine job of clarifying the intent of the quote that folks are accusing him of taking out of context.

For that matter, he clarified the Watts thing too:

Watts said Tuesday he noted his contributions in the letter because defense lawyers always tell trial lawyers they cannot win their cases ultimately because the Texas Supreme Court consists of all Republican justices.

"It was in response to the garbage we hear from defense lawyers every day," Watts said.

Opposing counsel, he noted, typically will say, "It doesn't matter what a jury is going to do because we've got nine angry Republicans on the Texas Supreme Court who will take away whatever a jury does."

Watts said he was only trying to point out that if he won at the appeals court level, it would be unlikely that the Supreme Court would accept the case on further appeal.

So defense counsel was telling the power company being prosecuted that they didn't need to settle, because the bench was loaded.  And from R.G.'s article, Watts was saying that, no, that's not as sure a thing as you think, so that he could get a settlement for his client, the husband of a woman killed by a power company employee, without having her go through the legal expense of a trial.  I think I'm OK with that.

I suppose everyone's busy being pro-Noriega or pro-Watts (or perhaps the choices are pro-Noriega or anti-Watts?); I'll go out on a limb and go pro-R.G. Radcliffe.  I think he does a pretty respectable job.

The Texas Blue: http://www.thetexasblue.com


My Keel's Just Fine, thanks for your concern (0.00 / 0)
Just checking -- did you just cite a Noriega staffer on the bit about R.G.'s story being some arbitrary smear that he surmises comes from Jason Stanford?

And are you saying that in one smear case, R.G. was a good reporter, and in the other, he was taking a piece out of context?  And the "good" was two or three lines out of a 9-page opinion?

If we're going to talk about the fairness of taking things in context, we should at least be consistent, shouldn't we?

George, I'm not sure what it is you're basing this on, aside from you thinking I'm being unfair to poor R.G. (and perhaps Jason Stanford?).

What I'm saying is that generally I've thought R.G. was a pretty good reporter, but that in this case-as someone who knows a lot more about this story, including info I supplied (easily verified with a little googling) in the interview I did with R.G. for it-it's sloppy.

Rick said those words. He said all of those words in the speech-and R.G. in this story demonstrates the very wedging that Rick was warning about in the full speech. Journalists and editors have power. They're responsible for what they do with it, and the mistakes they make with it.

My problem is not with people-bloggers or staffers-being pro-one candidate or another. As I noted in my interview with R.G., I've been puzzled by the lack of Watts supporters willing to go to the trouble of actually writing a diary in support of their candidate.  Mostly it seems to be an online campaign of whining and troll dropping misleading oppo research wherever they find a pro-Noriega posting.  That's sad.

It's not even that Jason Stanford had been tracking Rick and shopping this story in several venues for a month before R. G. bit.  Political operatives will do what they will do-it's part of the game.

My problem is that this was a 'gotcha' job that I know from my participation in the story is inaccurate on several points-some more important than others.

And as for Watts letter,  if R.G. took that ill advised quote and turned black into white then that's a problem too.

Has the Watts campaign had a comment on that? Or apologized for implying-even informally or inadvertently-that the judges in question would be influenced by his contribution history?  Because I haven't seen it, and if they have, I'd certainly think better of their candidate.


Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.


[ Parent ]
Two points to clarify (0.00 / 0)
My comment about political operatives is not intended as a slam, though I think it reads fairly harshly considering the rest of what I've written about this story.  There are honest political operatives and sleazy ones, and they are represented on both sides of the Dem/Rep divide.

Tracking and oppo research are expected parts of any campaign. People who do it well are responsible for some of the victories of the 2006 cycle-particularly in Jim Webb's long shot.

The second thing is that journalists write a lot of copy under tremendous time pressure.  There are supposed to be checks, but even so sometimes errors come through. 

When one is interviewed for a story, it's important to keep that in mind-for example, annoying as it was to see that my history-geek indulgence in my email address led to an error in my byline, that by itself was a very small thing.  It was very important to me, as someone who has been stalked in the past, to protect my pseudonymity, and R.G. respected that.

If that had been the only error, it would have been no big deal. 

The "black is white" distortion of the speech is much bigger-and I decided to address it where I have the chance to-here on Texas Kaos.

There were a couple of other errors that fall in between these two extremes.  I know R.G. knew about them, because they came up in my interview.  If he was skeptical in comparison to other sources, at least one thing he got wrong-when we started the Draft Rick movement-was easily verified with a simple google search.

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.


[ Parent ]
unclear? (0.00 / 0)
Perhaps my point wasn't clear.  You seem to steer the discussion back to Noriega and Watts.  My point was that you're looking at a fabricated problem.  It's not that R.G. is black-and-whiting, and that somehow maybe that happened to Watts too.  It's partially that one black-and-whiting was taken as an "example" of being a "fairly reliable reporter," and that the other was let[ting] himself be snookered."  Perhaps that was the bit that clouded the bigger point, as I am increasingly tired of people using shrouded smears to play favorites.  (By that, I mean saying either that the supposed "slam" in the piece against Watts had credible points, as in the original post, or as in the comments, that even if it didn't have credible points, that if Watts didn't respond to it, well, that's his fault -- as if the netroots have a responsibility to jump to Noriega's defense even before he's responded to the accusation against him, but for the other Democratic candidates they're on their own, and if they drown, tough for them.)  I also tire of the "no response from Watts supporters," particularly as a neither-supporter that regularly hears both sides.  But those are not the overarching purpose of my comment.

The foundation was, both the riled-up defense of Noriega and the schoolyard snickers and rumor-milling on Watts are fabricated problems.  Why hasn't the Watts campaign responded?  Because there wasn't a slam there.  R.G. took the quote (again, from out of a 9-page document), but then explained the context of the document and its purpose as a response to Republican manhandling of the judicial process.  And it made perfect sense.

Likewise, in the paragraph *immediately after* the one you quoted in your story, he allows the Noriega campaign itself the opportunity to explain the context for the quote, which it does.

Yet one became, "look, Watts buys judges!" and the other because, "look, they're trying to drive a wedge between us and Noriega!" when neither of those takes were what the articles, *taken as a whole,* actually said.

Call me crazy, but I don't like smearing Democratic primary candidates *at all*.  So I'm on board with clarifying that Noriega wasn't speaking ill (if it had just stopped at that), but I think trying to turn the Watts story into some slight is just as counterproductive.

Still rooting for the one that will win in '08.  Which that will be is up for grabs, but I'm probably putting my money on the one with the most donors (not money, but donors) by the end of the year as being the one that can more clearly excite more Texans and bring more votes.  Until then, you're not going to hear a bad thing about either of them from me.  Or probably a good thing, either, because I'd feel I have to say good about both, and I've seen how those that say something good about Watts are treated.  Let me make the side note that "not hearing anything in support of Watts" and "disagreeing with everything said in support of Watts" are two very different things.

The Texas Blue: http://www.thetexasblue.com


[ Parent ]
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


TexasKaos Tools
Blogging 101

Add My Link!

RSS Feed
TexasKaos.com Feedburner
Add to Technorati Favorites (Why 2?)
Add to Google

Texas Elections

2006 Election Results
- Statewide Results
- US Senate Results
- US House Results
- TX Senate Results
- TX House Results

National Elections
US Congress
- US Senate Results
- US House Results
All States
- Governor Results
- Ballot Initiatives
TKaos Voter Tools
TX Democratic Party (TDP)
- TKaosopedia on TDP
- Current TDP Officers
- TDP Handbook
- Party Structure
- SDEC Mission
- SDEC Members
General
- Roberts Rules of Order
- Roberts Rules Online
- Democratic Party
- Who are my Reps?
- Contacting US Congress
- Contacting your state legislator (also legislative research and more!)
- Texas Almanac
- Direct Link to Texas Legislature, including online Video, when in session
Democratic Orgs
- Democratic Party
- Wise County Active Dems
- Harris County Dems
Texas Progressive Alliance
National Voices
- Atrios
- Blog for America
- Daily Kos
- The Field
- Firedog Lake
- Huffington Post
- Iraq Casualty List
- Jesus' General
- Kid Oakland
- Media Matters
- MyDD
- Open Left
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- Shakespeare's Sister
- Talking Points Memo
Other Sites of Interest
- Army of Dude
- Latina Lista
- Pandagon
- Para Justicia y Libertad
More Tools
Technorati Profile

(Why 2?)

Texas Kaos logo design courtesy of Snarko!
Powered by: SoapBlox