Emergency blogging

Since it's come to my attention that I'm slacking off on the blog, here's a few quickies to get us all through ...

1. C.O. Bradford is now in the dogfight hunt for Harris County District Attorney. I was at the event last night. Not one representative from 801 Texas despite the event being like four blocks away from the place. Handful of video cameras, but I'm checking the major outlets in town. ABC ... nothing. CBS ... nada. NBC ... zip. Fox ... zilch. Remind me again how this "liberal media" thing is supposed to work? Anywho ... the best political reporter in town does have some coverage. Had the greatest pleasure watching mine and Kuff's traditional roles reversed as I intro'd Kuff to Chief. Seems the Chief remembered a little bit of Kuff's comments about him back in the day. Meanwhile, the hateHouston crowd has an ironic post up (that's not worth a link). Funny how the proprietor of that blog likes to slag on blogs that take partisan sides, only to read a post on that blog that ... wait for it ... takes partisan sides. Go figure. I guess it only counts as partisan when you make a valid point against someone with an (R) next to their names.

2. Dan Patrick's ego somehow finds a new height to climb to:

"It's clear that Mr. Van Arsdale has not voted in line with his district, and he has surely not voted in line with me [...]"

Finally, an honest accounting of the most important thing to Dan Patrick ... me, me, me.

Now, that said, if Patrick wants to follow through and support Michael Kubosh as a pretend Democrat against Corbin Van Arsdale, I'm all for a temporary marriage of convenience here. Anything that trains people in CD10 and the fastest-growing part of Houston to vote Democratic, I'm all in favor. Even if it means being stuck with Kubosh as a Democrat in name only.

3. Interesting story here out of Maryland, where the state Supreme Court upheld a gay marriage ban. That may not be music to the most liberal of my readers' ears, but what's interesting about the ruling is that it seems to fly right into the face of a conservative argument. That is that states need a constitutional amendment in order to prevent gay marriage as a last-hope firewall. The plaintiffs in this case tried to argue on the grounds that the enacted ban was unconstitutional, there wasn't a constitutional amendment preventing gay marriage ... and yet the court (a blue-state, MARYLAND court, no less), says "Nuh-uh." They went so far as to make a good argument for judicial restraint and respecting the legislative process, too. So much for activist judges. And so much for the phony argument among self-annointed amateur constitutional scholars with 6 college credit hours to their name claiming any expertise in the area. Not the first time they've gotten ConLaw wrong ... probably won't be the last.

4. Oh, and just for my own amusement (as if poking sticks at people isn't enough fun) ...