More incoherent, COVID-related, Gobldygook from Abbott

"So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth."
Revelation 3:16

We have questions:

Texas Governor @GregAbbott_TX says the first shipments of a COVID-19 vaccine should arrive in December.

Here is the initial plan and a list of people who will be first-in-line to receive the vaccine in Texas. pic.twitter.com/EZrPxmFZZJ

— Alex Caprariello (@alcaprari23) November 23, 2020

For the sake of discussion, we're going to assume those first three categories are fine. We've seen some questions raised on social media about how those terms are defined. Certainly, that's relevant. But, in terms of a macro-perspective, those populations are certainly where you should start distribution.

But, as far as those other categories are concerned, off the top of our head:

• Who's going to determine "health inequities" and isn't that a vague catch-all phrase that can mean anything to anyone?!?

• Why should we believe Abbott will pursue "data driven allocations" when there's considerable evidence he doesn't understand his own data?!?

• Why is "geographic diversity" a thing in the first place?!?  There's significant evidence that COVID spreads farther and faster in urban areas.  Shouldn't they get priority...especially if we're doing "data driven allocations?!?"

• At this point, re: COVID, the idea that Abbott's will be anything remotely resembling "transparent" is laughable.
• Note: See here for starters.

Bottom Line: None of the details from today's announcement make any sense...but that's also nothing new.

#TXLEGE: Texas house rules reform coalition letter

“I said to the boastful, ‘Do not deal boastfully,’
And to the wicked, ‘Do not lift up the horn."
Psalm 75:4

There's zero chance the Texas house adopts them, but these reforms are nevertheless a good idea:

Speaker Reforms Coalition L... by Brandon Waltens

Bottom Line: If they want to have a good session, the members should adopt these reforms. They won't. The session will proceed accordingly.

#TXLEGE: Rinaldi makes point that should be completely OBVIOUS (yet apparently isn't)

"But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying,"
Matthew 22:31

We made a Facebook post the other day about Allen West. It set off quite the debate in the comment section. Including this:

Honestly, it's sad is that is that this proposition is even remotely in dispute.

How many times do we need to play this game?!?

Your bills are already dead.

All you can do is make killing them as painful as possible.

Bottom Line: None of this is complicated.

#TXLEGE: LOLarson

"and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved."
2 Thessalonians 2:10

GOLD:

[T]here are no discernible reasons [for the Texas Legislature] to continue to meet once every two years, letting important state business languish while we wait for the pages of the calendar to fall.

....

The legislature should meet for 70 days every year beginning in mid-March, finishing in May.

In other words, twice as many opportunities to pass bad bills.

Of course, this sort of gamesmanship is par for Larson's course.

PushJunction has more:

LYLE LARSON is pushing for Texas to have a 70-day annual legislative session. Part of his reasoning includes lamenting that lawmakers weren’t able to follow Rahm Emanuel’s mantra, “never let a crisis go to waste,” to enact gun regulations following recent shootings.

Likewise, Larson's use of the Rahm Emmanuel playbook is nothing new.

Bottom Line: This won't go anywhere, but it's a good insight into how far too many legislators think.

#TXLEGE: It's time to sue Texas over Constitutional Carry (or lack thereof)

"Every one of the builders had his sword girded at his side as he built. And the one who sounded the trumpet was beside me."
Nehemiah 4:18

Rachel Malone has a piece about the state of play on #2A issues as we head into session.

Texas lags far behind other states in our right to carry. While 31 states recognize the right to open carry without a government permit—and 17 states recognize the right to conceal carry a handgun without a permit—Texas still generally requires a permit for handgun carry outside of our property, business, or vehicle.

....

In the name of liberty and justice for all, and in the spirit of the Alamo, the 87th Legislature must pass Constitutional Carry and end “gun-free” zones. Our right to carry a firearm for protection should not rely on government. Texas, it’s time to move forward with freedom.

O.K, sure. Nothing she says is wrong. But it's hard to miss that Texas' elected officials care about "the name of liberty and justice for all" or "the spirit of the Alamo."

Something that's never been tried is a lawsuit against the state of Texas over its permitting system. Doesn't take a genius to see how one could argue it's an unconstitutional infringement. Such a lawsuit might not be successful, but it's worth a shot. Especially in the newly Trumpified federal courts.

At a minimum, such a lawsuit would increase pressure on the legislature far more than vauge appeals to buzzwords and cliches.

Bottom Line: This is a ongoing headline the powers that be won't want, so it's not inconceivable they'd take steps to make it go away.

#TXLEGE: Overton Window moving on Paxton impeachment

"Therefore by their fruits you will know them."
Matthew 7:20

Ross Ramsey this morning:

In a political environment like Washington, D.C., the kinds of legal perils encircling Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton might be grounds for firing, impeachment or congressional investigation.

....

Because state lawmakers have gone through two full legislative sessions with an indicted attorney general, it doesn’t seem likely that they would consider impeachment. Paxton is hardly the first elected official in Texas to continue to serve while indicted. He’s not even the first attorney general in modern times: Jim Mattox, who served from 1983-91, was indicted and acquitted on commercial bribery charges early in his first term. Legislators let it play out in the courts. Mattox was reelected once and later ran unsuccessfully for governor and the U.S. Senate.

Impeaching someone in Texas isn’t like impeaching someone in Washington, D.C. It’s rarer, for one thing, and it has immediate consequences in a way that the federal system does not. The person being impeached is removed from office while the case is pending in Texas; in the federal system, they remain in office unless convicted by the Senate.

So what does that mean here? If a state official was impeached by the Texas House, they would be removed from office until after the Senate had held a trial and judged the House’s impeachment. It’s right there in the Texas Constitution: “All officers against whom articles of impeachment may be preferred shall be suspended from the exercise of the duties of their office, during the pendency of such impeachment. The governor may make a provisional appointment to fill the vacancy, occasioned by the suspension of an officer until the decision on the impeachment.”

Honestly, what's interesting isn't (yet) the merits or demerits of impeaching Paxton [Note: We're currently ambivalent]. It's about the fact that, by bringing this possibility into serious discussion, the Texas Tribune has changed the macro-environment. Expect more of this.

Bottom Line: This topic isn't going away anytime soon.

#TXLEGE/#atxcouncil: Hyberbole notwithstanding, Patick's substantive point about public safety was correct

"The wicked flee when no one pursues,
But the righteous are bold as a lion."
Proverbs 28:1

We meant to bring this up before the election, but a few weeks back controversy erupted when the Lite Guv remarked about Austin's crime rate: “The City of Austin is a disaster if you haven't been there a great city now one of the most dangerous cities in America and definitely in Texas.”

The Lt. Governor’s comment was met with disingenuous pearl clutching from Mayor Adler and Capitol sycophants. At issue were the precise details of Austin’s police budget cut and national rankings among Democrat-controlled cities with rising crime rates. Giving credit where due, the Lt. Governor’s critics caught him exaggerating.

To the degree that he made it easy for his political opponents to split statistical hairs, the Lt. Governor’s precise word choice was probably unhelpful.

Nevertheless, Austin’s rising crime rates and homelessness explosion aren’t hard to miss. Dan Patrick didn’t make the Austin City Council legalize tent cities while slashing the police budget. While it’s perhaps the case that other places have more violent crime, the 67% increase in Austin’s murder rate didn’t occur in a vacuum.

So, perhaps, it might have been more technically accurate for Patrick to say: “Under Democrat governance, Austin has become an open air homeless encampment that’s becoming one of the most dangerous cities in America and definitely in Texas.”

Also of note: The statistics used to fact check Patrick are from 2019. 2020 data won’t be out until next year. While it’s impossible to know in advance, there’s every reason to suspect last year’s trends have accelerated.

Bottom Line: That they attacked Patrick over verb tense rather than substance tells you what you need to know.