Check out this post: http://capitolannex.com/2009/07/21/school-districts-looking-to-rescind-extra-homestead-exemption/)
It looks like we’ve got something else to get the property tax relief crowd in an uproar:
Trustees of cash-strapped Texas school districts are being forced by budget deficits to consider the thorny issue of rescinding a local-option homestead exemption that some of them granted to homeowners during easier times.
Across Texas more than 200 districts grant the extra exemption — as high as 20 percent of the residential property value on top of the standard $15,000 homestead allowance — and can legally cancel it without a community vote.
Although eliminating the additional tax break during tough economic times would be unpopular, a letter from Texas education officials has some school districts thinking it might be necessary to make ends meet.
Robert Scott, Texas Education Agency commissioner, told the districts last month that the state — which has often refunded some additional homestead money to the districts — may not be able to afford future returns.
“School districts should not expect automatic continued adjustment and should plan accordingly,” the letter reads. “There is no certainty that a surplus of appropriations will exist in future years and even less likelihood in the first year of a state fiscal biennium.”
The exemption in question, of course, is on top of the mandatory exemption. And, no doubt, it will give the folks who build their political campaigns around property tax relief something to be upset about (Rick Perry, Dan Patrick, et al).
The problem with the continued efforts at “property tax relief” in Texas—like this additional exemption—is that they are quick fixes designed to be able to let politicians tell the public that they got them “tax relief.” Never mind that the bogus “tax relief” measures enacted aren’t usually such that they will survive an economic downturn (such as the one mentioned here). And, of course, never mind the fact that this kind of tax relief benefits wealthier taxpayers more than middle class tax payers.
Check out this post: http://capitolannex.com/2009/07/15/tx-sen-white-reports-fundraising-numbers-rakes-it-in-from-oil-and-gas-industry/)
Houston Mayor Bill White’s campaign for United States Senate has announced that White raised $1.8 million for the filing period ending June 30. Interestingly, a good chunk of that came from White himself:
The contributions for the filing period ending June 30th totaled more than $1.8 million, with more than $1 million raised. The candidate made a donation and matched all June contributions for a personal total of $821,000.
It is particularly interesting that White found it necessary to pour over three quarters of million dollars into his Senate campaign just a few months after his campaign helped lead the media to diss John Sharp for self-funding a chunk of his campaign bankroll. I guess White’s campaign thinks there is some distinction between what White has done and what Sharp did previously, but the fact is that there isn’t.
The campaign’s press release also failed to note that White is raking in more money than any candidate in the nation—Republican or Democrat—
from the oil and gas lobby in the current cycle, replacing John Cornyn as the top-dollar recipient this cycle.
Interestingly,
White is even beating out Texas Railroad Commissioner Michael L. Williams in terms of competing for oil and gas money. Given that Williams can actually deliver something to the oil industry for their cash
now as Railroad Commissioner, it is amusing that White has surpassed him. After all, if you look at William’s state finance reports, almost everything you see is a contribution from someone—or some PAC—connected to the oil and gas industry.
What does the oil and gas industry know that the rest of us don’t if they are giving to White over Williams?
Check out this post: http://capitolannex.com/2009/07/15/sharp-gains-major-endorsements-from-bill-whites-backyard/)
Former Texas Comptroller John Sharp this week gained two key endorsements from Harris County in his campaign for the U.S. Senate Seat expected to be vacated by Kay Bailey Hutchison.
The endorsements came from two county commissioners in Harris County—right in the back yard of Sharp’s principal opponent, Houston Mayor Bill White.
Commissioners El Franco Lee and Sylvia R. Garcia made their announcement at the end of Tuesday’s Commissioners Court meeting. From the press release:
“There is no time to waste, no matter when the special election is,” the two explained in a joint statement. “Now more than ever, Texas needs a proven problem-solver with statewide support.”
Lee, a former state representative who became the county’s first African American commissioner in 1985 when he was elected to represent Precinct One taxpayers, said he has worked with Sharp often through the years.
“John Sharp has the momentum in this race because Texans know what I have learned through the years — his success is rooted in his political balance and personal integrity,” Lee said, citing a recent University of Texas poll showing Sharp leading the field of candidates.
Garcia, the former Houston City Controller and chief judge of Houston’s municipal court system who in 2003 became the first Hispanic and the first woman elected in her own right to the Harris County Commissioners Court, agreed.
“Few have done a better job of representing our state’s rich diversity than John Sharp during his outstanding career,” Garcia said. “I especially appreciate his commitment to safeguarding vital public services while holding the line on new taxes and wasteful government spending.”
It is also worth noting that Garcia was just elected president of the National Association of Latino Elected Officials. That is a strong indication of just how strong Sharp’s support is in the Latino community in Texas.
Check out this post: http://capitolannex.com/2009/07/09/scientists-david-barton-wants-kids-to-study-are-favorites-of-creationists/)
If you thought that the State Board of Education was done with creationism versus evolution a few months ago, think again.
David Barton, the far-right WallBuilders founder and pseudo historian who was appointed to sit on the Expert Review Panel for the state’s social studies standards wants to replace preeminent scientists with some who are darlings of the creationist movement.
Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub has more:
Why doesn’t Barton like Carl Sagan? In addition to Sagan’s being a great astronomer, he was a grand populizer of science, especially with his series for PBS, Cosmos.
But offensive to Barton was Sagain’s atheism. Sagan wasn’t militant about it, but he did honestly answer people who asked that he found no evidence for the efficacy or truth of religion, nor for the existence of supernatural gods.
More than that, Sagan defended evolution theory. Plus, he was Jewish.
Any one of those items might earn the David Barton Stamp of Snooty-nosed Disapproval, but together, they are about fatal.
Do the scientists Barton suggests in Sagan’s stead measure up? Barton named four:
Wernher von Braun, Matthew Maury, Joseph Henry, Maria Mitchell, David Rittenhouse
In the category of “Sagan Caliber,” only von Braun might stake a claim. Wernher von Braun, you may recall, was the guy who ran the Nazi’s rocketry program. After the war, it was considered a coup that the U.S. snagged him to work, first for the Air Force, and then for NASA. Excuse me for worrying, but I wonder whether Barton likes von Braun for his rocketry, for his accommodation of anti-evolution views, or for his Nazi-supporting roots. (No, I don’t trust Barton as far as I can hurl the Texas Republican Party Platform, which bore Barton’s fould stamp while he was vice chair of the group.)
So, apart from the fact that von Braun was largely an engineer, and Sagan was a brilliant astronomer with major contributions to our understanding of the cosmos, what about the chops of the other four people? Why would Barton suggest lesser knowns and unknowns?
Matthew Maury once headed the U.S. Naval Observatory, in the 19th century. He was famous for studying ocean currents, piggy-backing on the work of Ben Franklin and others. Do a Google search, though, and you’ll begin to undrstand: Maury is a favorite of creationists, a scientist who claimed to subjugate his science to the Bible. Maury claimed his work on ocean currents was inspired at least in part by a verse in Psalms 8 which referred to “paths in the sea.” Maury is not of the stature or achievement of Sagan, but Maury is politically correct to Barton.
Joseph Henry is too ignored, the first head of the Smithsonian Institution. Henry made his mark in research on magnetism and electricity. But it’s not Henry’s science Barton recognizes. Henry, as a largely unknown scientist today, is a mainstay of creationists’ list of scientists who made contributions to science despite their being creationists. What? Oh, this is inside baseball in the war to keep evolution in science texts. In response to the (accurate) claim that creationists have not contributed anything of scientific value to biology since about William Paley in 1802, Barton and his fellow creationists will trot out a lengthy list of scientists who were at least nominally Christian, and claim that they were creationists, and that they made contributions to science. The list misses the point that Henry, to pick one example, didn’t work in biology nor make a contribution to biology, nor is there much evidence that Henry was a creationist in the modern sense of denying science. Henry is obscure enough that Barton can claim he was politically correct, to Barton’s taste, to be studied by school children without challenging Barton’s creationist ideas.
Maria Mitchell was an American astronomer, the second woman to discover a comet. While she was a Unitarian and a campaigner for women’s rights, or more accurately, because of that, I can’t figure how she passes muster as politically correct to David Barton. Surely she deserves to be studied more in American history than she is - perhaps with field trips to the Maria Mitchell House National Historic Landmark. It may be that Barton has mistaken Mitchell for another creationist scientist. While Mitchell’s life deseves more attention - her name would be an excellent addition to the list of woman scientists Texas children should study - she is not of the stature of Sagan.
David Rittenhouse, a surveyor and astronomer, and the first head of the U.S. Mint, is similarly confusing as part of Barton’s list. Rittenhouse deserves more study, for his role in extending the Mason-Dixon line, if nothing else, but it is difficult to make a case that his contributions to science approach those of Carl Sagan. Why is Rittenhouse listed by Barton? If nothing else, it shows the level of contempt Barton holds for Sagan as “just another scientist.” Barton urges the study of other scientists, any other scientists, rather than study of Sagan.
Interesting. More analysis of Barton’s “review”
here and
here.
Check out this post: http://capitolannex.com/2009/07/08/todd-staples-campaigning-on-food-safetyreally/)
On his campaign website, Texas Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples is touting all of his hard work on food safety as a reason that Texans would want to re-elect him:
During his first term, Staples has met in-person with Texas families across the Lone Star State in pursuit of fulfilling his promise to visit all 254 counties. His first term focus has been on connectivity between rural and urban/suburban communities, promoting the state’s agriculture/livestock economies, public food safety, school nutrition programs, rural Texas jobs, and fairly enforcing the state’s weights and measures laws including calibration of gas station pumps.
Really? His first term was focused on (among other things) food safety? Wow. I must have missed that. Let’s take a look at Staples’ record on food safety.
Going back to 2006 and Staples initial run for Agriculture Commissioner, he was touting food safety as part of his platform.
He mentioned that, along with “improving the lives of all Texans” in his 2007 inaugural address, too:
Pledging to “fight tirelessly to improve the lives of Texans,” Staples addressed the crowd of supporters, lawmakers and other elected officials for eight minutes, giving thanks to God, his parents and wife, Janet, and other family members.
Staples said the theme of his four-year term will be “Partners in Progress,” pointing out the impact that agriculture has on the state economy and in other areas.
The new ag commissioner said the food, horticulture and fiber industries collectively generate approximately $73 billion a year for the state’s economy or approximately 10 percent of Texas’ total gross state product.
“This is why I will help Texans market Texas products throughout the state, across the nation and around the globe,” Staples said. “Because people around the world deserve to experience the quality of product Texas has to offer. We want everyone to have the opportunity to Go Texan.”
Protection of private property rights, developing new water resources, renewable energy, recreational tourism and food safety and security were some of the other issues touched on by Staples during his comments.
Okay, it is report card time. How well did Staples do on the food safety campaign promise? He gets an “F,” although a “D” (f0r “diarrhea,” “dysentery,” and “disease”) might be more appropriate.
First, there was the
tomato salmonella outbreak:
State health officials’ search for the source of tainted tomatoes thought responsible for a salmonella outbreak focused on Harris County on Wednesday, as medical workers reported that three more local cases of the potentially fatal food poisoning had been confirmed.
By late Wednesday, the county total stood at 15. Single cases were reported in Fort Bend and Brazoria counties. Statewide, the total jumped to 35 on Thursday.
Then, there was the
jalapeno salmonella outbreak:
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced Monday that a sample of jalapeno pepper from a food distribution centre in McAllen, Texas, was a genetic match to the strain of Salmonella Saintpaul strain behind the current outbreak of Salmonella that has so far infected over 1,200 people nationwide.
And more toxic peppers:
The Texas plant, Agricola Zaragoza, has suspended sales of fresh jalapenos and recalled those shipped since June 30 — shipments it said were made to Georgia and Texas.
Those incidents were more than a year after Staples took office. What did Staples do about it? Nothing much.
Less than a year later,
the agriculture products scare of the decade centered on Texas:
Tests show products at a Peanut Corporation of America subsidiary in Texas may be tainted with salmonella, state health authorities said on Tuesday.
The Texas Department of State Health Services said on Tuesday it requested that the plant be closed after the company reported the findings of a private lab.
Doug McBride, a health services spokesman, said the positive samples were taken last week and the private company’s lab results came back on Monday. State test results were expected to come back on Tuesday.
The company voluntarily closed its Plainview, Texas, plant on Monday night “after laboratory tests of sample products from the plant indicated the possible presence of salmonella in some products,” state health officials said.
And, the Texas Department of Agriculture was right in the middle of that controversy.
Staples’ DOA certified the plant for its organic registry but didn’t bother to alert the Texas Department of Health that the facility was operating without proper permits or inspection:
The Texas plant had not been inspected for four years before last month. State officials blamed the plant for failing to register, but the plant had registered with the state’s organic certification program at the Texas Department of Agriculture. State officials could not explain Tuesday why the organic registry failed to alert health officials that the plant processed food and needed to be inspected.
Staples was running a fleet of inspectors that were evidently asleep at the wheel:
The Associated Press reported a Texas agriculture inspector, Gaylon Amonett, failed to disclose the local Peanut Corp. of America plant was operating without a state health department license despite at least three visits in the years before hundreds of people got sick.
The inspector responsible for certifying the plant to process organic products noted after each visit that the plant had such a license when it didn’t. Problems at the plant might have been flagged years ago had the inspector, who has since been fired, reported the plant’s failure to obtain the required license.
When the plant was finally inspected earlier this year, Texas health officials found dead rodents, rodent excrement and bird feathers in a crawl space above a production area, leading them to order a recall of all products the plant had shipped since 2005.
When did Staples
finally do something?
Only in the heat of the media firestorm over the Plainview peanut salmonella outbreak:
Two state agencies are joining forces to combat the devastating disruptions that occur when the food safety of farm products is called into question, according to a vegetable specialist with the Texas AgriLife Extension Service.
The Texas Department of Agriculture and AgriLife Extension are creating a program to help fruit and vegetable growers develop safety procedures that could help prevent food scares, said Dr. Juan Anciso.
“When edible farm products are linked to possible outbreaks of E. coli or Salmonella, the economic ripple is huge and many people suffer – consumers, farmers, packers, shippers, grocers, advertisers, lots of people,” Anciso said.
“[T]he economic ripple is huge and many people suffer…” Yep. But, it took
three outbreaks—one very major—before Staples did anything. Even then, it was only a $92,000 “something:”
Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples announced recently that the Texas Department of Agriculture had allocated $92,000 to create the Food Safety Good Agricultural Practices Program, to be implemented under the guidance of AgriLife Extension.
$92,000 seems a bit of a band-aid given the circumstanes. As for Staples commitment to food safety, this photo from his Flickr album (with our comments added) makes one wonder just how committed he is:
That’s a definite FAIL.
Check out this post: http://capitolannex.com/2009/07/07/more-david-barton-examining-his-analysis-of-the-texas-social-studies-teks/)
We’ve done a bit of fact checking on David Barton’s analysis of the Texas Social Studies TEKS already, and now it is time to take a closer look at Barton’s analysis. Hang on for a bumpy ride.
First off, Barton is following the lead of Don McLeroy and other rightwing extremists by trying to turn social studies instruction in Texas into a course in religious doctrine. Note this from Barton’s Analysis:
Students should be familiar with the fundamental principles of America government set forth in the 126 words in the first three sentences at the beginning of the Declaration and those principles should be regularly reviewed throughout their tenure as a student:
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitles them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
The principles set forth here and subsequently secured in the Constitution and Bill of Rights include:
1. There is a fixed moral law derived from God and nature
2. There is a Creator 11
3. The Creator gives to man certain unalienable rights
4. Government exists primarily to protect God-given rights to every individual 5. Below God-given rights and moral law, government is directed by the consent of the governed
Check out this post: http://capitolannex.com/2009/07/07/bartons-review-of-social-studies-standards-lacks-much-to-be-desired-including-actual-facts/)
David Barton, the pseudo-historian known for simply making up history and founder of WallBuilders and member of the Texas State Board of Education’s Expert Review Panel for Social Studies Curriculum, has a lot of concerns with the current social studies curriculum used in Texas. The problem is that much of what Barton has a concern with is either answered with an inaccuracy or appears to be based solely on prejudice.
Here is Barton’s review. We’ll be quoting from it throughout this post.
The first thing we would call readers’ attention to is the first thing that stood out to us when we gave Barton’s review an initial once-over.
In his review, Barton writes that the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the sacrifices they made must have more focus placed on them in the curriculum standards. He writes:
2. The Signatories of the Declaration and the Sacrifices they Made. Nowhere do the TEKS indicate that the writers of the Declaration should be examined; rather they only vaguely mention that students should “identify the contributions of significant individuals during the revolutionary period, including Thomas Jefferson and George Washington” [Grade 5 (b)(2)(A)]. The current modern trend is to present only two or three signers of the Declaration (in the aforementioned case, only one); and almost universally absent is any presentation of the personal sacrifices incurred in honoring their pledge of giving their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor. Virtually unknown to this generation are their sacrifices – that 7 of the 56 signers died during the Revolution; that 3 were made prisoners of war (and 3 wives of the signers were also made prisoners of war); 3 signers lost their children; 3 lost their wives; 17 lost their fortunes and estates; several lost their health; etc. Students should be asked to identify and study not just the typical two or three signers but several of them, including their character, sacrifices, family, and leadership. Such an historical examination will also inculcate the elements of patriotism and citizenship required by state law. [Emphasis added]
Barton’s statistics about Declaration signers somehow sounded familiar to us. Then, we remembered it sounded similar to an e-mail forward that started making the rounds back in 2000.
That email was collected and debunked at Snopes.com.
Sadly, Barton’s made-up history—even when close to right—is short on facts. Let’s pick it apart.
Barton Claim: 3 signers lost their children
Historical Record Shows: Abraham Clark of New Jersey saw two of his sons captured by the British and incarcerated on the prison ship Jersey. John Witherspoon, also of New Jersey, saw his eldest son, James, killed in the Battle of Germantown in October 1777. If there was a second signer of the Declaration whose son was killed while serving in the Continental Army, we have yet to find him.
DIFFERENCE: Only one signer actually “lost” a child, John Witherspoon. Clark’s sons were made POWs, but were not killed.
Now, how about that POW claim:
Barton Claim: that 3 were made prisoners of war (and 3 wives of the signers were also made prisoners of war)
Historical Record Shows: It is true that five signers of the Declaration of Independence were captured by the British during the course of the Revolutionary War. However, none of them died while a prisoner, and four of them were taken into custody not because they were considered “traitors” due to their status as signatories to that document, but because they were captured as prisoners of war while actively engaged in military operations against the British: George Walton was captured after being wounded while commanding militia at the Battle of Savannah in December 1778, and Thomas Heyward, Jr., Arthur Middleton, and Edward Rutledge (three of the four Declaration of Independence signers from South Carolina) were taken prisoner at the Siege of Charleston in May in 1780. Although they endured the ill treatment typically afforded to prisoners of war during their captivity (prison conditions were quite deplorable at the time), they were not tortured, nor is there evidence that they were treated more harshly than other wartime prisoners who were not also signatories to the Declaration. Moreover, all four men were eventually exchanged or released; had they been considered traitors by the British, they would have been hanged.
Richard Stockton of New Jersey was the only signer taken prisoner specifically because of his status as a signatory to the Declaration, “dragged from his bed by night” by local Tories after he had evacuated his family from New Jersey, and imprisoned in New York City’s infamous Provost Jail like a common criminal. However, Stockton was also the only one of the fifty-six signers who violated the pledge to support the Declaration of Independence and each other with “our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor,” securing a pardon and his release from imprisonment by recanting his signature on the Declaration and signing an oath swearing his allegiance to George III.
DIFFERENCES: Barton is off by three POWs. As for the wives, we only find a refrence to one wife being taken as prisioner, in this debunking of the same email Snopes debunks.
And how about that claim about those seven deaths:
Barton Claim: 7 of the 56 signers died during the Revolution.
Historical Record Shows: Nine signers died during the course of the Revolutionary War, but none of them died from wounds or hardships inflicted on them by the British. (Indeed, several of the nine didn’t even take part in the war.) Only one signer, Button Gwinnett of Georgia, died from wounds, and those were received not at the hands of the British, but of a fellow officer with whom he duelled in May 1777.
DIFFERENCES: Many. Number one, Barton’s basic facts are wrong: he says seven, the reality is nine. Number two, Barton intimates, going off the old myth, that the signers actually died as a result of the Revolution and not from old age or some other ailment totally unerlated to the war. Dying as a result of old age or gout during the same years as the American Revolution is far different from “dying during the Revolution,” actually implies.
We’ll have more later this evening; this is just for starters.
Check out this post: http://capitolannex.com/2009/07/07/sheila-jackson-lee-eulogy-at-michael-jackson-memorial-already-proving-controversial/)
A eulogy delivered by Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Houston) at a memorial service for pop icon Michael Jackson in Los Angeles a few hours ago is already causing a storm to swirl around the longtime Texas Democrat, herself no stranger to controversy.
Via Politico:
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee eulogized Michael Jackson at the Staples Center in Los Angeles Tuesday, paying her respects to the fallen pop star and defending him against charges of child molestation.
“We understand the Constitution, we understand laws, and we know that people are innocent until proven otherwise,” the Texas Democrat told mourners gathered for Jackson’s memorial service. “That is what the Constitution stands for.”
The congresswoman, who has introduced a resolution to honor Jackson as “an accomplished contributor to the worlds of arts and entertainment, scientific advances in the treatment of HIV/AIDS, and global food security,” spoke about how Jackson helped bring Americans into public service.
“Many people don’t understand the hearts of entertainers,” she said. “They don’t know how big their hearts are. They don’t know how they heal the world on behalf of America.”
Jackson Lee went on to recall Jackson’s visit to Washington in 2004, to rally awareness for the fight against HIV/AIDs, as well as a meeting she had in her office with him and 15 African ambassadors.
Video here:
Conservatives like
Michelle Malkin have already gone nuts over Jackson Lee’s remarks:
Oh, no, she didn’t.
Oh, yes, she did.
Democrat Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee just pimped the stupidest House resolution ever on stage at the Jacko memorial at Staples Center. She held up a big, framed copy of it as the crowd cheered. That was after she extolled “The King,” painted him as the world’s greatest humanitarian, and demagogued the child molestation cases by proclaiming that members of Congress “know the law” and know that he is “INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY!”
Yes, she did. Right there in front of Jacko’s three children.
I thought Al Sharpton’s memorial rant was the low point for American culture.
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, you win.
The National Republican Congressional Committee also took advantage of the opportunity to point out that Jackson Lee was missing an “important vote” in Congress today to be at the memorial:
While Jackson-Lee is pre-occupied speaking at Michael Jackson’s celeb-studded memorial in Los Angeles, and promoting her bill honoring Jackson, she is neglecting this very real vote taking place back here in Washington:
H.Con.Res. 135 - Directing the Architect of the Capitol to place a marker in Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center which acknowledges the role that slave labor played in the construction of the United States Capitol (Sponsored by Rep. Lewis (GA) / House Administration Committee
Will this cause Jackson Lee any real harm? Probably not. A Republican could never win her district, and Jackson Lee herself is a Teflon woman in her district. It is doubtful much of this will matter, but political foes will nonetheless make hay with this bit of interesting political theater.
Check out this post: http://capitolannex.com/2009/07/07/staples-will-seek-second-term-as-ag-commissioner/)
Todd Staples (R-Palestine) announced this week that he will seek a second term as Texas Agriculture Commission.
The decision was unsurprising given that Staples, who has long desired upward mobility in state government, is trapped where he is.
He is unqualified to run for an open Attorney General spot, not able to compete dollar-for-dollar with Lt. Governor David Dewhurst in a potential U.S. Senate race, and smart enough not to make the mistake of running against popular Comptroller Susan Combs or Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson in a contested primary, and too inexperienced to compete with AG Greg Abbott for the Lieutenant Governor’s spot. Thus, the re-election announcement.
The re-election announcement did come with a couple of surprises: with no opponents formally announced yet (although Hank Gilbert is probably a sure thing on the Democratic side) Farm Bureau and the Texas & Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association are already endorsing Staples.
Among other things, this proves that Farm Bureau AgFund is essentially irrelevant as a political organization.
Interestingly enough, Staples announcement may be designed more to hold off challenges from within his own party than for anything else. Rumors of two potential GOP challengers for Staples—regardless of whether he remained in the race—have been rampant for the last two weeks.
