Culberson's Crush

Hmm. Someone on lawtalkers.com political forum tried to tell me that Ronnie Earle was a partisan hack that only lost when he went after republicans and won when he went after democrats. His "republicans" were Jim Mattox and KBH. I nearly died laughing at the notion of Republican Mattox.

Obviously the incorrect meme has spread. It's rather cute that they've screwed up so much.

It's funny, ya know. I caught the Hardball clip on Chris Bell's site and Chris Matthews bought the same spin. You know that can't be an accident. The GOP talking points have a factual error (or two ... or a dozen) and they've permeated the mainstream (formerly known as "liberal") media.

I hate to be a stick in the mud, and maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't see where what you quoted makes any direct claim that Mattox is or was a Republican.

It does indirectly tag Mattox as one among a list of Earle's "political opponents," and it calls Earle a "hatchet man" for the Democratic Party.

But one can have -- and I respectfully submit, Earle has had and does have -- "political opponents" within one's own party as well.

I don't think the blurb is particularly well drafted; I'd say it permits, but doesn't compel, the inference that Mattox is or was a Republican, and to that extent it's confused or confusing.

But I think you're reading it to say something it neither intended to say, nor actually definitively says. I don't think the author necessarily thought Mattox was or is a Republican. But I'd certainly agree with you that anyone who did have that impression would be laughably out of touch with Texas political history.

Beldar,

That's an unusual amount of hair-splitting. You say it's not particularly well drafted on Culberson's part. You say it permits the very inference I taunt the verbage for, but unless I know the "author" of the verbage was mistaken, it's somehow a reach on my part?

The graf notes Earle as "nothing more than a hatchet man for the Democratic Party" without identifying any fissures within said party. The author also identifies all of two named cases out of Earle's history ... TWO! If one is deemed a hatchet man for the Democratic Party, why cannot the author identify a meager second instance of a Republican? Why not try and make the case that Earle goes after opponents period, which might be a clearer case if it has Mattox as part of the narrative? Why the absence of noting that Mattox is a Dem to differentiate between that case and Hutchison's?

The problem with the verbage is not that it isn't "particularly well crafted" ... it's that it's crafted very poorly, period.

Furthermore, that the talking points going around town have increasingly made mention of Mattox as a Republican. Chris Matthews could have sworn he'd switched parties! Am I to believe that Matthews' own research folks made a similar mistake as the author of these talking points? It hardly strikes me as an accident, but then again, I'm of the opinion that few things are truly an accident. If it were one bad press release and nothing else came of this poorly spun point, that'd be kinda funny in and of itself. But once it spreads to others, you know there's some serious spinning done by someone who really doesn't know the basics of the job they're doing.

And just for good measure, Beldar, here's Tom DeLay himself fudging on the nature of Jim Mattox's political leanings. He goes on to call Ronnie Earle a "liberal fanatic," pointing out a charge against the "conservative Democratic" Leiutenant Governor ... and Jim Mattox.

The political situation in Texas back in those days was conservative Democrats against liberal Democrats. He indicted the lieutenant governor, a conservative Democrat. He indicted Jim Mattox, the attorney general?This is just the sleaziest of politics. He is a fanatic, a liberal political fanatic. Think Progress

Jim Mattox, as we Texans know, is as liberal as they come.