Thursday Roundup: More Ex-Allies For Craddick

The 2009 speaker's race is getting more interesting by the day. The newest legislator to declare that he will run against Craddick for the speaker's seat is none other than his Speaker pro tempore, Sylvester Turner. Yes, that would be the guy that refused to acknowledge a motion to kick Craddick out of the seat just a few days ago. There is some talk that Turner is really doing this to head off a primary challenge after siding with Craddick this session, but Charles Kuffner has a solid point in that Turner has a pretty good hold on his seat, and has done a lot for his constituency, so he doesn't seem particularly vulnerable to a primary challenge.

Speaking of crowded races, I got to have an "I told you so" day yesterday at the office — Fred Thompson is forming an exploratory committee for a bid at the Republican presidential nomination. Seeing as he's already gotten support from a number of traditional red organizations that were lamenting the lack of a True Conservative in the field (which I'm sure irked Tancredo and Brownback to no end), I hold steady to my prediction that he will be the 10-ton gorilla of the Republican primary race. Money is a massively important criterion for a race, particularly a presidential race — but it's largely an enabler to letting you compete; after a certain point, it comes down to the abilities of the competitors, and I give Thompson the edge in that field in down-and-dirty politicking. You've seen his video response to Michael Moore's call to debate him on health care, right? Word has it he did that in one take — just asked somebody to come by with a video camera, told him to sit down and start filming, and rattled that off. There's a reason actors make good candidates, and that reason has to do with managing their public persona and message control, I think.

Speaking of the message mattering, apparently Richardson's new TV ads that started running a couple of weeks ago are wildly popular with Democrats and Republicans alike. They rate far better than other candidates' more traditional ads, and still get their point across well. I saw these when they were released; they're brilliant. My one concern is that they don't work well for the presidential demeanor that I think someone has to have to get elected — but honestly, it's not like he has that right now anyway. He has come across as massively qualified, but not so hot on stage. We'll see if there's any improvement in his performance in the debate this weekend, I suppose.

I suppose I should note the Supreme Court's decision yesterday on the Ledbetter v. Goodyear case, which is being universally decried as a blow to fairness and equality in the workplace. But I really don't know what to say about it. Yeah, SCOTUS struck another blow against fundamental civil rights. I wish that came as more of a surprise to me. What is there to say — that we need a new president? Is that news?

At least, though, Ginsburg got a chance to flex serious chops with a fantastically well-written dissent. You should read it, if you're into that sort of thing. (I know I am.)

Finally today, in the "ridiculous ascends to sublime" category, the Agriculture Department is fighting a ruling requiring widespread testing by meat companies for mad cow disease. Why is the Bush administration fighting to make sure meatpackers have the right to not test their product? Apparently, their argument is that "widespread testing could lead to a false positive that would harm the meat industry." I'm telling you, I wish I were making this stuff up. The false positive that could harm the industry is apparently worth the false negative of putting your head in the sand and ignoring the problem. I have to side with Crooks and Liars — this really does sound like it's an article from The Onion.