The jury didn’t buy Eddie Ray Routh’s insanity defense and the legal experts weren’t surprised. To win at trial, Routh’s attorneys had to prove that the ex-marine didn’t understand that shooting Chris Kyle and Chad Littlefield in the back was morally wrong.
It is difficult to know what was going on in Eddie Routh’s mind the day he gunned down two innocent men at an upscale firing range in suburban Dallas. Nicholas Schimdle’s “In the Crosshairs”, a carefully researched New Yorker piece written shortly after the murders, makes a strong case that Routh not only suffered from PTSD but was deeply depressed and delusional in the months leading up to the murders. But that wasn’t sufficient. As state witnesses repeatedly emphasized, a defendant can suffer from mental illness and still distinguish right from wrong.
It is likely, in fact, that Eddie Ray Routh killed Chris Kyle and Chad Littlefield because he had taken a fancy to Kyle’s spanking new Ford F-350. Would a sane individual believe he could get away with a crime this brazen? Probably not. But even if Routh was too detached from reality to appreciate the consequences of his action, that wasn’t enough to convince the jury.
Moments after his arrest, Routh undermined an insanity defense by answering affirmatively when a state trooper asked him if he knew what he did was wrong.
Chris Kyle is widely regarded as a war hero in Stephenville, Texas and several jurors had recently seen American Sniper a Clint Eastwood biopic featured in packed theaters as the trial unfolded. Kyle’s widow attended the Academy Awards (where American Sniper lost the best-picture competition to Birdman) short days before testifying in Routh’s trial. (more…)
Why were Democrats so thoroughly humiliated in the 2014 election? Analysts have been warning for months that this would be a tough year for the Blue team, but few expected the carnage to be this bad (or good, depending on your perspective).
The question is particularly pressing in Texas where Wendy Davis, the Democratic candidate for governor, lost by twenty points despite prodigious fund-raising success and massive GOTV support from groups like Battleground Texas.
Few expected Davis to win; but twenty points?
By the numbers, Davis lost because more 80% of key demographic groups voted for Republican Greg Abbott: white males, white evangelical Christians, voters who believe government is too big and that abortion should be illegal.
But Davis also lost because voters who normally help Democrats stayed home.
Davis didn’t do well with younger voters and did really badly with older voters. Only 6% of the electorate was between 18 and 24 and Greg Abbott received 59% of the votes of Texans between 25-29, 45% in the 30-39 category, 57% in the 40-49 group, and close to 70% support from voters 50 and older.
Only 61% of Latino woman supported Davis while Latino men actually favored Abbot, albeit by a single percentage point. Over all, Davis got only 25% of the white vote, 92% of the black vote and 55% of the Latino vote.
Latino support for Leticia Van de Putte, candidate for Lieutenant Governor, was also embarrassingly weak. While Latino women favored Leticia 58%-40%, Latino men backed Dan Patrick, an outspoken opponent of immigration reform, 53% to 46%. These results are particularly mystifying when you realize that Van de Putte is a Latina who switches effortlessly between English and Spanish.
If Democrats were shredded from sea to shining sea, the results in Texas were particularly depressing for a party boasting its intention to “turn Texas blue.”
So, why did it happen.
The big story is that only 28.5% of eligible Texas voters showed up at the polls. Texas has always been a low-voting state, but 28.5% suggests an alarming level of disengagement. White evangelicals showed up in droves, comprising 30% of the Texas electorate (according to exit polls), and 84% of them voted for the Republican.
Even if every single evangelical voter had stayed home, Davis would have eked out a narrow victory.
When you can’t win 30% of the white vote, it doesn’t matter how well you do with young people and Latinos.
Election results make it clear that Latinos who care about immigration and young people generally stayed home.
It is tempting for Democrats to castigate their supporters for sitting this one out, but that’s precisely the wrong approach. What did Democrats do, in Texas or nationwide, to give young people and non-white voters a reason to vote?
As things presently stand, the Democrats are a party without a message, And no, “the Tea Party is crazy and we’re not” doesn’t count.
When Obamacare survived a horrendous roll-out and registered a series of smashing successes, Republicans doubled down on their criticism. When Democrats failed to defend their leader’s signature policy success, the only story in town came from Republican politicians and pundits: “Obamacare is horribly, shockingly, disgustingly awful!!!!”
Democrats begged Obama to avoid action on immigration until after the election. The result: low turnout from frustrated Latino electorate and the loss of a hot campaign issue. Sure, immigration is controversial, but the majority of American support both the Affordable Care Act and immigration reform.
A party without a message can’t compete with a party sporting simple talking points and a high degree of message discipline. It doesn’t matter if most Republican positions are demonstrably wrong–if no one beats the drum for the alternative, Democrats will stay home and Republicans will score lopsided wins.
Texas Democrats won’t win 40% of the white evangelical vote in the foreseeable future, but if they can’t do better than 16%, the Republican hegemony could extend into the second half of the twentieth century.
White evangelicals see Democrats as the party of secularism, and if we restrict our attention to white Democrats a case can be made for this proposition. But the anti-God label is hilariously off-target if Latino and African American voters are taken into account.
Show up at a Black or Latino church and you will realize that Republicans have no corner on spirituality; but too many white Democrats, in my experience, have come to see religion as the enemy. That needs to change.
Wendy Davis was doomed form the outset because abortion rights, in Texas, is a political loser. Greg Abbott’s position on abortion is surprisingly moderate, but the “abortion Barbie” label killed Davis in the heartland.
Unfortunately, much of the political money that flooded Texas came from people determined to make the abortion issue front and center. The only way to protect women’s access to health care, long term, is to vote moderate candidates into positions of power. In the end, Davis was forced to run away from abortion rights, gun control, immigration reform and virtually every other progressive issue. She was a candidate without a message and her plight presented an egregious example of what ails Democrats across the nation.
Here’s the bottom line: democrats will become competitive in Texas the minute they give young people and Latinos a reason to vote. That didn’t happen in 2014 and it won’t happen in 2016 unless we see dramatic change.
Texas Democrats are using Ted Nugent’s outrageous remarks about Barack Obama to embarrass Republican gubernatorial hopeful Greg Abbott and, of course, raise money for the Blue team. That’s business as usual politics. But I have two questions. Why does Nugent talk this way, and why, given his rhetoric, is Nugent such a hit with the politicians?
To my knowledge, I have never heard a single Ted Nugent song, but for the past 40 years I’ve been aware of the man. In the early 1970s his image was everywhere. Nugent’s album covers (see the example above) combined images of electric guitars, wild animals, sleazy sex and shotguns. I found these images less than titillating and had zero interest in hearing the man’s music; but with 30 million albums sold, a lot of people must have been eating this stuff up.
Ted Nugent talks like a pro wrestling heel–the guy who loves to be hated. Extreme lyrics, album covers and violent concert antics gained him an enthusiastic following in the 70s. With the decent of his musical fortunes, Nugent maintained a measure of notoriety by making outrageous comments, such as calling Barack Obama a “subhuman mongrel”.
Nugent, like many Americans before him, mastered the art of foul invective because, when he speaks like a reasonable human being, nobody pays attention. If you crave the limelight, and you have no genuine insights to offer, one must resort to slander and violent rhetoric. Conservative and liberal lesser lights put a different spin on the ball, but the principle is the same. (more…)
Is Greg Abbott the Attorney General of Texas or is he a flak for the National Rifle Association and the GOP? He can’t be both.
If Abbott is Texas Attorney General (and in the picture to the left, he certainly looks the part) he represents and speaks for all Texans, not just those who voted for him. His public rhetoric should reflect that fact.
But on Monday night, Abbott told a partisan crowd in Waco that a group of Democrats working to turn Texas blue is “far more dangerous” than North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.
It’s okay for the crowd to be partisan; but Abbott came to town as a representative of the state of Texas. In theory, at least, he should be speaking for all Texans and to all Texans (unless an election in the offing). Associating the state democrats with the crackpot leader of a failed state suggests that Texans are either Republicans or they’re the enemies of all that is good and decent. This comes perilously close to denouncing the democratic system, in particular, and political pluralism in general. (more…)