Texas Blue Mailbag: Week of 5/20/07

Our fellow Democrats get feisty in this edition of the Texas Blue Mailbag.

MK from Dallas says:

To: Texas Blue

For more than a year, I have been researching the plight of foster children in Texas
Yesterday the Dallas News carried a front page story about the TexasHouse
and a bill from Sen. Jane Nelson, ultra Republican, whose main inerest seems
to be full privitization of the Child Protective Services.

Despite the fact that privitization has involved at least 200 or more so-called
firms with contracts (but not much oversight evident from the State as far as
I can find, Sen. Nelson seems adamant to include a "test" project of some
3000 children taken away from all family members and put in foster care,
homes selected by private outfits, supervised (?) by private people and
under expensive contracts to "prove that privitization can work."

Now, we have more than 22,000 children, I think) whose foster homes receive
no oversight, no visits, no checking out of people involved, sometimes not
even caseworkers for months at a time. WHAT IN THE WORLD ARE WE
THINKING? What happens to such children? From police reports in
Dallas published in the Dallas Morning News this year, nearly 40%
who leave the system at 14 to 16 years old, end up in trouble, incarcerated
in juvdenile detention and/or prisons.

My question: ARE WE WINNING? Taxpayers are literally having to pay
for these poor kids for many, many years. Of course we're now, perhaps,
going to address the problem. A little late.

However, please spread the word to all Democrats about the plight of
children whose lives have been snatched by Child Protective (?) Services,
and literally put into DEADLY SITUATIONS in some instances. The
State of Texas is a ratty foster overseer!

Josh replies:

I think that social problems like these are indicative of Republican leadership. They claim to be the party of morals and values and then they cut social programs which help innocent people out of impossible situations. By doing that, they create huge bureaucratic problems, which is politically dumb: it doesn't result in the programs being done away with, because people essentially recognize the need to help people that can't help themselves. Instead, the programs suffer from a defined lack of resources, which chokes their efficiency, creates enormous backlogs, and results in millions of dollars in increased costs to taxpayers. It is not unlike how cell phone companies give you eleven phones for a dollar and welcome you to their service, but when you want out of the contract, it costs you $16,782 per line plus an organ to be named later.

JM writes:

why is it even worth my time to pay attention to politics anymore. isnt it pretty obvious that no political movement, aside from near-upheaval/revolt, could possibly overcome the agenda set forth in our country by (easiest term possible:) the military-industrial complex that ike warned us about minutes before JFK was inaugurated?

George replies:

Short answer? Because it's still there, and it still affects you.

Long answer? Well, you probably don't want it; it's got a couple of rants in there about people complaining about the system but not bothering to do anything about it, and those just aren't pretty. But if you need a little more explanation, try this: Ike warned us about the dominance of the military-industrial complex because he believed the democratic process could do something about it. So I'd disagree with your premise: No, it isn't "pretty obvious that no political movement... could possibly overcome the agenda" of the military-industrial complex. Unless, of course, we all sit around and decide to do nothing about it. Oh, now, I said I wouldn't do that, didn't I?

JA asks:

What does everyone there think of the early reviews of Shrum's book that indicate it paints John Edwards in an unfavorable light?

By many accounts, (1) (2) (3), Bob Shrum is a terrible person. He also has lost more Presidential elections than anyone. Ever. People like to say "than anyone alive" but astute observers have forced me to point out that you can also say "or anyone dead" with perfect accuracy.

As for books about Presidential candidates, it happens. Senator Clinton has two coming out soon, and Obama wrote his own, beating everyone to the punch on various closeted skeletons. It is worth noting though that Shrum worked for Kerry, Edwards, and Gephardt in 2004, and has termed his selection to ultimately work for Kerry as him being the "winner of the Shrum primary."

So there you have it. Shrum Primary.

MO writes:

Paul Begala is Blue.

And MF writes:

Paul Begala? I hardly think so! Only James Carville or Terry McAulliffe could be worse!
These people are no more "Blue" than Joe Lieberman!

George responds:

...or maybe George doesn't respond!

Maybe, just maybe, George just gets horribly frustrated every time he finds Democrats saying other Democrats "just aren't Democratic enough" for them. As you see above, others will differ, and it would seem that one person — or one household, or one organization, or one blog, or one state, who cares! — thinking they can exclude another from the "big-tent" Democratic party is fundamentally against the entire point of the beast. A Texas Bryant-inspired agrarian populist wannabe will not have the same political stances that a New York liberal will. They are both Democrats. And they will both work to get the party into power, and can then work for policies that will benefit the both of them. Unless holier-than-thou, you're-not-blue-enough Democrats looking to pick fights so they can show how liberal they are get in the way of the election of one or the other, in which case we end up in the minority and can't get anything passed that benefits either one.

You'll get to read my full response in an article next week. For now, the summary: The "not blue enough" argument is silly, and it hurts the party. Get over it.