Katherine Haenschen Posts

23 Texas Republicans co-sponsored the "Forcible Rape" bill that has gotten Missouri Congressman and Senate Candidate Todd Akin -- and his BFF in lady-shaming, Republican VP candidate Paul Ryan -- in so much hot water this week.

The bill seeks to prevent any taxpayer funding from being used to pay for abortions. Currently, the Hyde Amendment allows public funds to be used for women to access abortion if they are a victim of rape or incest.

This morning, Mitt Romney picked Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, architect of the radical Republican Ryan budget, to be his VP. Quick to put out a statement on the pick was stalwart progressive Texas congressman Lloyd Doggett:

U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), who has served with Rep. Paul Ryan throughout his tenure as Budget Chairman and on the House Ways and Means Committee issued the following statement this morning:

"Bright and articulate, Paul Ryan represents a younger version of Rick Perry policies without the rough edges and 'oops' moments.  I like him; I just don't like his policies, which are not a return to our founding principles but only a reversal to the failed Bush-Cheney approach.  I disagree that the only way to bring more balance to the federal budget is to make it more difficult for seniors to balance their personal budgets-that we cannot afford to commit more for educational opportunity but can afford to provide more tax cuts to the privileged few and the corporate tax dodgers."

Anyone who is surprised by the pick should remember that Romney and Ryan see eye-to-eye on budgetary and economic matters -- a notion that should send a shudder of fear through middle-class American families.

Congressman Paul Ryan's budget closely adheres to Romney's own oft-stated desire to give massive tax cuts to the richest Americans while passing the cost of civilized society on to the middle- and lower-classes. Romney and Ryan both support privatizing Medicare, replacing it with a voucher program that will cost the average senior citizen an extra $6,350 per year. Both want to charge seniors more for prescription drugs and preventative care. Both Romney and Ryan want to cut 200,000 kids out of Head Start each year, cut Pell Grants for 10,000,000 students (that's 10 million students), and cut funding for veterans' affairs by 19%. Both Romney and Ryan want to extend all of the Bush tax cuts, providing $5 trillion more in cuts for the wealthy, which would require raising taxes on middle-class families. And of course, both Romney and Ryan support rolling back Wall Street reforms that protect consumers and prevent future financial crises.

It's a match made in dystopian Republican heaven!  

Texas Democratic Party Chairman Gilberto Hinojosa released the following statement in response to the results of the Primary Runoff Elections, with Paul Sadler winning the Democratic nomination for US Senate and Ted Cruz seemingly on Cruz-control to win the Republican nomination:

"We could not be more excited to have Paul leading the Democratic ticket. Paul Sadler cares about Texans. He's got a proven track record of working to improve the lives of Texas children. While Ted Cruz and David Dewhurst were busy trying to out-right-wing each other, Sadler was talking about the issues that matter to middle class Texas.  We've got a real race on our hands.

"Tonight was the Republican Party's Thelma and Louise moment. It may feel pretty exhilarating now, but that landing's going to be hell. A Ted Cruz victory is the worst thing that could have happened to Texas Republicans. In spite of Dewhurst's millions, Perry's last minute pitches, and establishment support, Republicans nominated Cruz. It's a Tea-flavored mutiny, plain and simple. Now they're saddled with the Texas version of Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell. The inmates are running the asylum and middle class Texans are taking notice."

Christine O'Donnell? Daaayum.  

At long last, on this 31st day of July, our Texas primary season will conclude with some lingering runoffs.

Polls close at 7:00 p.m. If you are in line at 7:00 you will be allowed to vote. Early vote should be in shortly after 7:00 p.m. Election Day results will trickle in throughout the night.

Watch this space as our team updates this results chart.

Liveblog to follow as results come in.  

Long-shot former solicitor general Ted Cruz is poised to upset sitting Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst in the Republican Senate primary, and it might not be a bad thing. Shocking, sure, to the insiders and Perry power brokers who figured The Dew was a lock back in the fall, before redistricting litigation delayed the primaries and allowed Cruz the extra time to spread the word that he was the "real" conservative. The media buys have been omnipresent and ugly

Personally, I've debated internally for months over who I'd rather see win the primary, and likely take the seat in November. Dewhurst is less crazy, more grounded in what passes for factual evidence in the Republican Party of Texas these days. He'd be less embarrassing to our state in the US Senate. He's more of a "statesman," though at times his campaign has behaved so very irresponsibly that he should be blushing every time that ad about driving a young man to suicide airs on the TV.

A Cruz victory, on the other hand, would make soon-to-be senior Senator John Cornyn irrelevant, since Cruz could steal the limelight from Big John's thinly-veiled flailing racism with his out-and-out 100% capital-C Crazy. A Cruz win would also keep Dewhurst in the pink dome presiding over the Senate, a welcome relief from the likely ascension of Senator Dan Patrick, who might gladly help pass a law requiring actual chastity belts given the make-up of the incoming Senate next year. Cruz would be only 1 of 100 in the US Senate and has absolutely zero governing experience. It's unlikely he could get much done. Both of them would have near-identical voting records. And Cruz might be easier to knock out in 6 years if demographics and revitalized TDP organizing actually come to fruition. And maybe, just maybe, a Cruz win would scare moderates and corporate Republicans into recognizing what the Tea Party truly has wrought here in Texas.

Perry has backed Dewhurst throughout, and could take a huge hit amongst Tea Party types if Cruz pulls it off. Even Sarah Palin has taken to mocking Perry for his backing of The Dew -- and if a less-than-one-term Alaskan Governor feels safe poking fun at the longest-serving governor in Texas history, well... if nothing else that doesn't bode well for Perry 2016.

Dewhurst came in first on May 29th with 44% to Cruz's 34%, yet polling suggests Cruz will win owing to more enthusiastic supporters who would literally crawl over broken glass to vote for their guy. Dewhurst's core demographic may be too busy summering in the mountains to cast a ballot. Whatever happens, I hope @FakeTedCruz stays around for a long time. As he'd probably say when he's not making inside jokes about GOP operatives, "I'm really ready for the run-off to be over so I can pop a few cold ones, gang. Laughing out loud."

Below are results from the 10 most populous counties in the May 29th primary:

Who will win? Tell us in the comments.  

From the get-go (by which we mean the second filing deadline for the primary), the question was which other candidate would join Paul Sadler in the run-off given the four-way race between four under-funded candidates. Few onlookers expected it to be Yarbrough, who perhaps coasted on his homophonic last name. Late Senator Ralph's relative he is not. Sadler, on the other hand, is a distinguished former legislator who  racked up newspaper and elected official endorsements. Yarbrough has run before for statewide office as a Republican. Sadler prevented a public education financing crisis in the Legislature.

Sadler's campaign has been hamstrung by lack of funding. Democratic donors in the state need to get behind him if he is the nominee and provide resources to run a professional campaign. Sadler needs to spend more time locked in a closet with a phone and a list of donors. The choice is excruciatingly easy -- Sadler's vastly better. Furthermore, if Cruz bests Dewhurst, Sadler has a chance of picking off moderates, if he has the funds to communicate with them.

Results from the May 29th primary in the top 10 most populous Texas counties below:

Wither the hairy legged moderate man of the State Senate? Jeff Wentworth, who hasn't always kowtowed the Republican Party line, may be at the end of his two-decade career in the Senate, which spans 7 terms and began in 1993 when Ann Richards was still Governor. Wentworth, loathed by this publication for his staunch support for the Guns on Campus legislation, has been moderate on choice and environmental issues, which has made him something of a pariah in this Republican primary. He voted against the sonogram bill in the Senate, the lone Republican to do so. It may be his undoing in the runoff, where he faces run-off challenger and right-wing extremist Dr. Donna Campbell, who opposes abortion even in cases of rape or incest. Furthering Wentworth's potential demise is a volley of outside money from Texans for Lawsuit reform, owing to his lack of orthodoxy on tort reform. TLR spent heavily on Elizabeth Ames Jones, third place finisher, and in so doing helped bruise Wentworth in the first round. Now the group is lining up behind Campbell.

Campbell gained traction in the grassroots Tea Party community with her 2010 run against Lloyd Doggett in 2010 in CD-25. She then moved into SD-25 to challenge Wentworth, arguably in electoral conditions and a district even more favorable to her than CD-25 in a general election. Fittingly, in the first round of the primary, she won in the Travis and Hays portions of the district, which overlapped with the old CD-25. She also ran strong in staunchly conservative Comal, where she moved when she announced her bid. Campbell's second-place finish surprised many, due in part to the great gobs of money TLR shelled out to back EAJ, who stepped down from the Railroad Commission to run for the seat and placed 3rd in a very close primary.

Wentworth has been on the receiving end of attacks from all sides in this race, and it's tough to see how he prevails, especially since EAJ and TLR have moved over to back Campbell in a desperate effort to oust the incumbent. Wentworth runs strongest in his home turf of San Antonio, but with 36% of the Bexar vote going to EAJ in the first round, it's not clear if those voters will gravitate back to Wentworth or go with the challenger. Redistricting is also a factor here, as Wentworth loses much of his Travis County turf -- the district used to stretch up through central south Austin, where possibly some remaining moderate Republicans turning out for Dewhurst could have pulled the lever for Wentworth.

Things don't look good for Wentworth, and as a result the Texas Senate will likely shift even further to the far right. It's possible -- in the Dumb and Dumber one-in-a-million, "so you're telling me there's a chance" kind of possible -- that Democratic nominee John Courage could best Dr. Donna in November if moderate voters find out just how extreme she is on just about every issue possible. However, Courage would need substantial resources to communicate that to the voters. Last session, the Senate was able to stop much of the crazy legislation passed by the lower chamber. Now, with the additions of Kelly Hancock and Larry Taylor, the body shifts to the right. The loss of Wentworth for Dr. Donna will further this trend, all of which makes holding Democratic Senator Wendy Davis's seat this November all the more crucial in preventing the upper chamber from completely descending into anti-civilization madness.

County-by-county results below:

Thoughts on this race or predictions? Leave 'em in the comments.

The winner of this runoff -- itself the by-product of an 11-way Democratic primary -- will go to Congress. This minority-opportunity district was designed to elect a Democrat. The only question is whether Marc Veasey or Domingo Garcia gets the win. Veasey is a current State Rep, Garcia a former member of the state house. Veasey represents the Tarrant County side of the district, which was initially intended to be wholly within Tarrant and majority-African American. Garcia hails from Dallas, and is counting on the 61.3% Hispanic population to put him over the top. Veasey earned 37% in the first round, Garcia 25%.

From the get-go, Veasey and Garcia were perceived as the frontrunners, as David Alameel's hefty $2 million self-financed campaign produced little more than a slew of billboards. The runoff has turned acrimonious due in part to Garcia's attacking area employers and making allegations that Veasey is insufficiently Democratic. Veasey has earned endorsements from a broad range of Democrats in Tarrant and Dallas County; Garcia has been endorsed by a former Craddick D. Veasey has raised almost $800K to date to Garcia's $182K; however, Garcia loaned himself $300,000 on his May pre-primary report and another $300,000 on his Q1 report.  

Now that it's a two-man race in the two Metroplex counties, look to see if Veasey can do better in Dallas than Garcia does in Tarrant, and if Veasey can get Tarrant turnout high enough to prevail.

Thoughts on this race or predictions? Leave 'em in the comments.

On the Democratic side, this is the race that has the biggest consequences for November, and possibly for the ability of the Blue Team to reclaim the US House of Representatives. Former Congressman Ciro Rodriguez faces off against State Representative Pete Gallego for the chance to oust incumbent Republican and special interest whore Quico Canseco this November.

The 23rd is a huge district, the 8th largest in the US (not counting at-large districts) and runs from south Bexar County all the way to El Paso. Both candidates have strong ties to the turf: Ciro previously represented the district, winning a runoff against Henry Bonilla in December 2006. He lost to Canseco in 2010. Gallego has represented HD-74 -- which overlaps extensively with the Congressional district -- in the Legislature for over 20 years.

Once the field settled for the race -- Ciro initially was running in the 35th as our maps worked their way through various manifestations -- Pete and Ciro found themselves joined by John Bustamante, son of former Congressman Albert Bustamante, who also represented the district. Gallego vastly outraised Ciro, $821K to $151K. However, Ciro came out on top in the first round with 46% to Gallego's 40%. Ciro was bolstered by strong showings in the most populous counties in the district. Additionally, he received a boost from Maverick Co., where a local endorsement from the County Judge combined with high turnout in the race to fill Pete Gallego's seat in the Legislature.

At issue in this key pick-up opportunity is Ciro's electoral history -- namely his ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. First elected to CD-28 in 1997 in a special election, Ciro lost the seat in the 2004 primary to Henry Cuellar. He lost again to Cuellar in the 2006 Democratic primary (which was held in March, because that's when we usually do this sort of thing in Texas). When the US Supreme Court threw out the extant 23rd District in the summer of 2006, Ciro jumped into a jungle-style primary with incumbent Republican Henry Bonilla. Ciro made the run-off with 20% to Bonilla's 48%, and pulled off a huge upset to return to Congress. The DCCC bailed out Ciro in that race, spending heavily and sending top staff to the district. After an uneventful 2008, Ciro lost in the 2010 General to Canseco, 49% to 44%.

Should Ciro win the runoff and head to November, there are concerns that he won't be able to vanquish Quico, owing to lack of funds and an inability to move "swing" voters. Gallego has shown himself to be the stronger fundraiser, and his time in the Legislature has made many moderates and moveable voters in the vast district amenable to voting for him.

It will all come down to turnout. As the chart below shows, Ciro prevailed by winning the high-turnout counties. Gallego had some landslide wins in counties that weren't as vote heavy. There are two other races on the ballot that could have an impact on the winner of the race. The runoff for HD-117 between Tina Torres and Phillip Cortez has been hotly contested, and should have higher turnout. CD-23 overlaps with HD-117 along the western side of Bexar county. Also keep an eye out for elevated turnout in El Paso, where there's a heated runoff for County Commissioner Pct 3 between former State Rep. Chente Quintanilla and former Congressman Silvestre Reyes staffer Vincent Perez. (Go Vince!) Again, this race likely comes down to which counties have the highest turnout.

Here's a chart on how each candidate fared in the first round, by county:

Thoughts on this race or predictions? Leave 'em in the comments.

The race for the dismantled and now open CD-25 will likely be decided in the primary tomorrow, as former Secretary of State Roger Williams and Tea Party activist Wes Riddle square off in this sprawling Central Texas district. Redistricting warped CD-25 from an Austin-anchored district that ran east to Colorado county and south to Caldwell into a monster that takes a handful of precincts in Tarrant and Bell, wide swathes of the Hill Country, and punches across Travis just to draw in Lloyd Doggett's home.

Rogers is the odds-on favorite owing to his substantial fundraising advantage (he's raised $1.1M to date and had a cool half-million in the bank on his 12-day pre-primary report), and his name ID from his stint as SOS and his car dealerships. Rogers entered the race at the end of the second filing period after initially declaring for the Legislature's gerrymandered CD-33, which took the shape of a Republican district rather than the minority-opportunity district it is now. He had also floated a US Senate run, but got no traction. The highlight of his campaign has certainly been this juvenile and ridiculous video in which Williams talks to a field of actual donkeys and displays the level of maturity he will bring to Congress should he win. Williams is certainly an opportunist, spent a long time shopping around for a district, and settled on the 25th owing to lack of other options.

Conversely, Williams' opponent Wes Riddle, got in the race early when it wasn't even clear where CD-25 would be, what party it would be drawn to favor, or even whether Lloyd Doggett would still be running in it. (Doggett is now the Democratic nominee in CD-35.) Riddle sowed his 4x8 signs across the district and reaped pretty solid name ID, and touted his Tea Party credentials into a second-place finish in a crowded field of 12 Republicans in the primary. Many onlookers expected Michael Williams to finish second in the first round and head on to a Williams-on-Williams runoff; now the question is whether there's an upset brewing since Roger Williams only received 25% of the initial vote and is by far the more "Establishment" candidate.

Riddle has been endorsed by Ron Paul (perhaps owing to Riddle's support for Paul's bill to audit the Federal Reserve). Meanwhile Williams has been endorsed by Rick Perry, the US Chamber of Commerce, and a gaggle of Texas Congressmen. This will be an interesting race to watch if only to see if the Cruz and Dewhurst factions (and their respective endorsers, Paul and Perry) split in this race the same way they split in the Republican Senate primary.

Here's a chart on how each candidate fared in the first round, by county:

Thoughts on this race or predictions? Leave 'em in the comments.

As you've probably heard, Mitt Romney's horse will be representing Team USA in London, and now the horse's rider is pushing back against allegations that the sport is "elitist." Other competitors include royals -- yes, like relatives of "kings and queens" royals -- from Saudi Arabia, Denmark, and Great Britain. Dressage horses can go for a quarter-million dollars, which amounts to pocket change for Romney. It's practically our national pastime -- most middle-class kids grow up playing dressage in the streets. I'm not sure if there's much action betting on dressage, but if there is, Mitt might just bet you $10,000 that his horse can dance around the issues better than yours.

Now, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that dressage is one of the few sports where male and female riders compete as equals. I wonder what Romney thinks about that -- he still refuses to say whether or not he supports men and women receiving equal pay for equal work.

Meanwhile, performing the role of the dancing horse's ass is Romney himself, who has put in a medal-worthy performance in embarrassing the United States during an ill-timed visit to London. So far he has refused to offer any foreign policy specifics whatsoever, because hey, why talk about foreign policy when you're on a trip to demonstrate how strong you are on foreign policy? So far, Romney has mostly managed to demonstrate that he's unprepared to lead. He insulted the Brits' security preparedness for the games, prompting a public rebuke from the Mayor of London and Prime Minister David Cameron. Back at home, Senator Harry Reid told HuffPo it's bad for our country "to have somebody that's nominated by one of the principal parties to go over and insult everybody." Nine-time Olympic gold medalist Carl Lewis summed it up best: "I swear, sometimes I think some Americans shouldn't leave the country."

Mitt Romney has already promised to return America to the failed economic policies of the Bush administration. Now it looks like he's also trying to bring back the policy of turning the American presidency into an international joke that would be funny if it didn't have such deadly serious human consequences. With his trip to London, Romney has put in a strong performance to win the gold as most embarrassing American abroad. Maybe he should just stick to the dancing horses and leave the "leading the free world" business up to those who are able to handle the job.

Busy tomorrow? If you've got time to help take back the State House, get on the Annie's List bus from Austin to San Antonio. Volunteers are needed to head down to HD-117 and help blockwalk for Tina Torres, the Burnt Orange Report endorsed candidate in this crucial race.

Torres is the strongest candidate to take on Republican incumbent John Garza in a district that isn't a sure bet for Democrats this cycle and will be a tough fight in 2014. Make sure Tina Torres wins this run-off and heads into November with strong support.

Meet at Annie's List headquarters tomorrow, Saturday, July 28, and board the bus, which departs at 9 a.m. sharp for San Antonio. Annie's List will be providing transportation, campaign t-shirts, volunteer materials, breakfast tacos and lunch. For more information and to RSVP, please contact Amy Garza at 512-415-3051 or amy@annieslist.com.

Quick wrap-up of news pertaining to the ongoing Republican primary runoffs here in Texas:

Crazy People for Cruz! Sarah Palin, Jim DeMint, Rand "Son of Ron" Paul an Mike Lee are coming to Texas to campaign for Ted Cruz. Also actively supporting him is shamed radio psychopath Glenn Beck and one-man Dick Armey, who will also attend a rally in Dallas for Cruz. Source: AP

Rick Perry stumping for JM Lozano: This week in advance of the Democratic turncoat's runoff next Tuesday, our Republican Governor has taken a trip down south to bolster his campaign. This comes after Lozano voted against two of Perry's "emergency items" -- photo voter ID and sanctuary cities legislation -- during last session. I guess when Lozano sold his soul, he exacted a pretty high price from the Republican leadership. Maybe they're just desperate to find a Hispanic Republican who won't get "Victor Carillo'ed" this cycle. Source: KRIS TV

$21 Trillion in Tax Havens: The Guardian published a lengthy piece on the $21tn in assets currently hidden offshore, wealth that would close many developing nations' budgetary gaps and alleviate the need for much humanitarian aide. You know who hides his money in offshore tax havens? Mitt Romney! Source: The Guardian

Any news in your neck of the woods? Post it in the comments.  

The Austin Chronicle announced today that they are changing their endorsement in the Constable 2 runoff, from "no endorsement" to supporting incumbent Adan Ballesteros.

They write:

It is only in rare circumstances that we change our opinion about the candidates in a race. In the first round of the primary, we endorsed Paul LaBuda. After he failed to make the run-off, we decided not to endorse either of the other candidates. Now, with the rhetoric of the run-off escalating, we have reversed that position.

County constable is an administrative position, and therefore we use different criteria than we would in an legislative race; we look for someone who will be able to run the office capably as well as someone who can provide leadership that reflects this community's values. Cargill's refusal to distance himself from the appalling and potentially libelous accusations being thrown by his supporters at Ballesteros, as well as his utter lack of experience, discredits him in our eyes. In that light, we urge our readers to vote for Ballesteros.

The Chronicle makes no mention of Cargill's extreme position on guns, something Burnt Orange Report first brought to light in a guest post from John Woods, a Virginia Tech survivor and organizer of Students for Gun-Free Schools Texas. Cargill lobbied for guns on campus on behalf of the NRA, and supports repealing federal gun-free school zones and background checks.

Democratic primary voters should be aware of Cargill's extreme position on guns, which is not only to the right of most Democrats, but to the right of moderate Republicans as well.  

Pro tip to political consultants out there: don't let your candidate pay a private eye to sit outside a woman's house late at night, because it's super-duper creepy. That's what has been happening in San Antonio, where Tina Torres and Phillip Cortez are in a run-off to be the Democratic nominee. The winner meets incumbent Republican John Garza, who ousted Democrat David Leibowitz in the 2010 Republican wave.

Late this week, local news reports in San Antonio broke the story that Cortez had hired a private eye to follow Torres and camp outside her home late at night. In response, Torres supporters stood outside Cortez' home to draw attention to the gross invasion of privacy and overall creepiness of his hiring a private eye to essentially stalk the woman at her home. (Note that the supporters are doing this in broad daylight and not trying to hide their actions or engage in subterfuge like Cortez.) In response, Cortez staffers hastily made their own signs and staged their own timid counter-protest.

Cortez is also alleging that Torres doesn't live in the district to distract voters from his own questionable history. Cortez stepped down from the San Antonio city council under questionable circumstances. He lied and claimed that he was called to active duty in the Air Force on short notice, a position he repeatedly claimed was forced on him. It turns out Cortez actually actively sought a three-month appointment, a desk job, to help him transition to public affairs work. He also convinced the council to appoint his fiancee to his seat in the interim, a move many thought was designed to set her up to run for the seat, since he was term limited out. Gaining additional training is fine; the question is why Cortez felt the need to lie to his colleagues and the people of San Antonio about his true motivations and actions.

Meanwhile, the Torres campaign has refuted the residency challenges, and continues to run hard through the July 31st runoff. Torres posted a strong July 15th TEC report, with $48K raised, only $29K spent, and $29K cash on hand going into the last month of the run-off. Her opponent, Phillip Cortez, raised $19K, spent $41K, and had $2K left in the bank. That's bad news if Cortez is the winner, since the nominee faces well-funded Republican John Garza, who has a $89K war chest to use to smear the eventual Democratic nominee.

This week the San Antonio Express News also re-upped their endorsement of Torres from the first round of the primary, "strongly encouraging" people to cast ballots for her in the run-off. They wrote,

Torres said she decided to enter the race because of her strong opposition to Garza's record on family issues. She has demonstrated a true commitment to family and children's issues through volunteer work. Torres has 16 years of legal experience, and she has shown that she is a capable advocate for her causes.

Cortez accurately points out that he has more political experience. But his performance as a councilman demonstrated a disturbing lack of judgment that voters should consider.

Torres also received the endorsement of Ken Mireles, the third-place finisher in the three-way primary, who received 31% of the vote. Several of Mireles' top staffers also joined Team Torres to help consolidate support behind her.

Make no mistake: the 117th won't be a slam-dunk for a Democrat this November. Not only is Republican incumbent Garza well-funded, the district went narrowly for Obama and our Supreme Court candidates in 2008, and went for Perry over Bill White in 2010. We need a Democratic nominee who can oust Garza in 2012 and hold the seat in 2014. It does us no good if we can't hold the majority of the seats we pick up this cycle in 2014, especially in districts with more than 50% Hispanic voter registration.

On an electoral, political, and now just straight-up personal level, Torres is clearly the best choice in this run-off.  

File this under "exactly how not to respond to a terrible tragedy." This morning, after news broke about the awful shooting in a Colorado movie theater that left 12 dead and dozens injured, Republican Congressman Louie Gohmert took to right-wing radio to declare that the tragedy was the result of "ongoing attacks on Judeo-Christian beliefs."

Gohmert was a guest on "Istook Live!", a show produced by The Heritage Foundation and hosted by former Oklahoma Congressman Ernest Istook. Here's a snippet of his remarks, courtesy of the Huffington Post:

"You know what really gets me, as a Christian, is to see the ongoing attacks on Judeo-Christian beliefs, and then some senseless crazy act of terror like this takes place," Gohmert said.

"Some of us happen to believe that when our founders talked about guarding our virtue and freedom, that that was important," he said. "Whether it's John Adams saying our Constitution was made only for moral and religious people ... Ben Franklin, only a virtuous people are capable of freedom, as nations become corrupt and vicious they have more need of masters. We have been at war with the very pillars, the very foundation of this country."

"People say ... where was God in all of this?" Gohmert said. "We've threatened high school graduation participations, if they use God's name, they're going to be jailed ... I mean that kind of stuff. Where was God? What have we done with God? We don't want him around. I kind of like his protective hand being present."

So much crazy, it's hard to know where to start.

The Founding Fathers believed in religious freedom, which included the freedom to practice religions other than Judeo-Christianity, and included freedom to practice no religion at all. This is reflected in the First Amendment. Maybe Louie should familiarize himself it. Additionally, a person can be moral without practicing a religion or the specific religions Gohmert refers to here. (Similarly, the most ardent Bible-thumpers can also behave in decidedly immoral ways.)

Also? 12 people died today, scores more are in the hospital, a community is traumatized, and all Gohmert can do is use this incident to wage a war of religious intolerance. Will other Texas Republicans defend Gohmert's comments that this tragedy is the result of a so-called "war on Christianity" that right-wingers are always frothing about to get their base riled up? It all kind of makes you wish God would use his protective hand to impart some sense into good old Louie here.

Meanwhile, here at BOR we extend our sympathy, prayers, and good wishes to those affected by today's tragedy. This is a senseless act of violence, and our hearts to go out to everyone grieving, regardless of their political or religious affiliation.

With early voting set to begin on Monday in our primary runoffs, Marc Veasey is racking up impressive organizational endorsements that pack some serious heft in the race for CD-33. The 33rd district is a minority opportunity district in the Metroplex spanning Tarrant and Dallas counties. Veasey, a distinguished State Representative, is facing Domingo Garcia, a former State Rep described by Paul Burka as "a one-man leper colony."

The National Association of Realtors put together the following ad touting their support of Veasey. The ad is positive, touting Veasey's endorsements by the Dallas Morning News and For Worth Star Telegram as well as his work on economic issues in the Legislature. Take a look:

The group has spent $150,000 to air the ad in the Metroplex. That's a good chunk of change, and will hopefully provide Veasey with some serious air cover.  

Yesterday, the League of Conservation Voters jumped on the Veasey train, with their federal PAC endorsing him as well. From their press release:

"We need Marc Veasey's environmental leadership in the United States House of Representatives. He's fought for environmental priorities like clean air and clean water for years in the state legislature and he will be an outstanding advocate in Congress. LCV Action Fund is proud to endorse Marc Veasey," said LCV Action Fund President Gene Karpinski.

During his career in the state legislature, Veasey has been a champion for environmental issues as a member of the Environmental Regulation Committee. As Chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, Veasey was instrumental in leading the fight against Governor Rick Perry's attempts to skirt federal environmental regulations and reward his special interest friends.

Not a bad haul for Veasey. No word yet if LCV is planning to spend money in support of their candidate; in CD-23 the organization spent significant money in support of Pete Gallego in the first round of the primary, so they have a history of putting their money where their endorsements are.

Meanwhile, the Fort Worth Star Telegram has re-upped their endorsement of Veasey in an editorial that ran two weeks ago. The piece mainly focuses on Garcia's negative and irresponsible campaigning:

Garcia early on attacked three of Tarrant County's largest employers by announcing opposition to the F-35 fighter jet built by Lockheed Martin, calling American Airlines' management "reprehensible" and saying he had no confidence in General Motors. Those were statements many thought the lawyer would walk back after reflection or at least do a better job of explaining. He did neither, as Veasey staunchly defended the companies and their workers.

Attempting to insult Veasey by calling him an "errand boy" for big business, Garcia offended many of his would-be constituents by referring to an African-American man as a "boy," a statement for which he has refused to apologize.

Veasey was the leading vote-getter in the first round, racking up 37% to Garcia's 25% in a crowded 11-way race. Garcia spent heavily on his own race, to the tune of over a half-million dollars. The run-off will likely come down to who can do a better job mobilizing their respective bases: Veasey's strong support in Fort Worth and from African-Americans, and Garcia's in parts of Dallas County and with some Hispanic voters. Clouding the easy parsing of the district is Veasey's growing support amongst Hispanic leaders such as State Reps Rafael Anchia and Robert Alonzo, and Garcia's endorsement of Fort Worth city council member Kathleen Hicks. Time will tell.

Early voting begins Monday July 23 and runs through Friday. Election Day is Tuesday July 31. Yep, voting in July. In a primary.  

As we noted earlier today, one of the strongest parts of the speech was when the President addressed creating opportunity for everybody. He took aim squarely at Mitt Romney's failed economic policies, his history of outsourcing American jobs, and the very rationale for his candidacy -- Romney's business experience. Here's a snippet:

"Governor Romney, his main calling card for running for office is his business experience, and so, understandably, the American people have been asking, well, let's find out what you've been doing. And if your main experience is investing in companies that are called "pioneers" of outsourcing, then that indicates that we've got a different vision, because I don't want to be a pioneer of outsourcing. I want to be a pioneer of insourcing. I want to stop giving tax breaks to companies that are shipping jobs overseas.  I want to give tax breaks to companies that are investing right here in Austin -- investing right here in the United States of America, betting on American workers, making American products that we sell, stamped with three proud words:  Made in America.  That's why I'm running for President of the United States again." -- President Barack Obama, Austin, July 17, 2012

Read his full speech below the jump. Also below the jump, the President announces his bid for Travis County dogcatcher. Just kidding! Sort of.

THE PRESIDENT:  Hello, Texas!  (Applause.)  It is good to be back in Austin, Texas!  (Applause.)  It's good to be back.  Love Austin, Texas.  (Applause.)  How is everybody doing today?  (Applause.)

A couple of people I want to acknowledge.  First of all, your fine mayor of this fine city, Lee Leffingwell is here.  (Applause.)  We've got an out-of-town guest who is doing outstanding work in another part of Texas -- the mayor of Houston, Annise Parker is here.  (Applause.)  Somebody who is fighting on behalf of working people every single day -- Congressman Lloyd Doggett is here.  (Applause.)  And give it up for the outstanding entertainment provided by Jerry Jeff Walker. (Applause.)

And thanks to all of you for being here.  (Applause.)  I am excited to be back.

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  I love you!

THE PRESIDENT:  I love you back.  (Applause.)  I do.

Now, Texas, let me tell you, this is my last campaign.

AUDIENCE:  Awww --

THE PRESIDENT:  No, it's true.  Unless I move down here to Austin -- maybe I -- (applause) -- run for dogcatcher down here or something.  (Laughter.)  This is most likely my last campaign, win or lose.  And it makes --

AUDIENCE:  Nooo --

THE PRESIDENT:  And it makes you nostalgic about your first campaign, and the first few campaigns I ran back in my home state of Illinois -- (audience member screams) -- Illinois in the house!  (Applause.)

Now, back then, understand, I did not have Air Force One.  (Laughter.)  I didn't have Marine One.  I didn't have the Beast driving me around.  I drove myself around.  And Illinois is a big state, so I'd go up and down -- I'd usually have one staff person with me; a lot of times I'd be the one driving.  And we didn't even have MapQuest back then, so you had to unfold the map -- (laughter) -- and try to figure out how to fold it back, and we'd get lost.

But when I think back to those times, those early campaigns, we'd travel to inner-city communities and rural communities and suburban communities, and you'd meet folks from every walk of life -- black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, wealthy, low income.

And what was fascinating was that everywhere you went, there was a common theme, a common thread.  I'd see an elderly couple and I'd think about my grandparents -- my grandfather who fought in World War II, and my grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line while he was gone.  And when he came back, he was able to get a college education on the GI Bill -- (applause) -- and they were able to buy a home with the help of an FHA loan.  And I'd think about the journey they traveled and how remarkable that was and how that represented all that the Greatest Generation had done.

And then I'd meet a single mom somewhere and I'd think about my mom, who basically raised me and my sister on her own because my father left -- (applause) -- and how she had to struggle to work while she was putting herself through school and still keep us on track.  And yet she was -- because of the help of scholarships and grants -- able to get her education and then give me and my sister the best education in the world.  And I thought about how that couldn't happen probably in most places around the world.

And then I'd meet a working couple somewhere and I'd think about Michelle's parents.  Michelle's dad had MS, so by the time I met him, he could barely walk.  He had to use two canes.  And he had to wake up an hour early every morning, earlier than everybody else, to get -- just to get dressed.  And he worked at a water filtration plant, a blue-collar job, and Michelle's mom stayed at home until they were a little older and then she went to work as a secretary.  And they never had a lot, and yet because of the love and the values that were in that household, Michelle and her brother were able to get an unbelievable education and go as far as their dreams would take them.

And I'd hear these same kinds of stories everywhere I went. And it reminded me that what makes America so exceptional, what makes us so special, is this basic bargain, this basic idea that in this country, no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from, no matter what your last name is, no matter what setbacks you may experience, in this country if you work hard, if you are willing to take responsibility, then you can make it.  You can get ahead.  (Applause.)

That, for the overwhelming majority of Americans, that effort means that you can find a job that supports a family and it means that you could maybe get a home that you call your own, and you can send your kids to a good school and not go bankrupt when you get sick -- (applause) -- take a vacation once in a while -- nothing fancy.  I was telling some folks up in Ohio about my favorite vacation when I was a kid was when I was 11, driving around the country and traveling around the country with my mom and my sister and my grandma.  And most of the time we took Greyhound buses and stayed at Howard Johnsons.  And if there was any kind of little swimming pool anywhere, I was happy.  (Laughter.)  And a big event was going to the vending machine and buying a soda and then filling the ice bucket and carrying it back.  (Laughter.)  That was a big deal.  But the point was you didn't do it -- it wasn't a luxury, it was just the chance to have a little adventure with your family.

And then part of that bargain was that you could retire with dignity and respect and the end of a life, and that you knew that your kids could achieve more than you did, that their lives would offer opportunities you couldn't even imagine.  And that bargain, that idea of who we are as a people, that's what built this country.  That's what made us into an economic superpower, this idea that anybody could make it.  And being middle class didn't have anything to do necessarily with just the money in your bank account, but it had to do with a set of values and a set of beliefs about what was important.  (Applause.)

And it's those values that propelled me to get into politics in the first place, because I saw the blessings in my life, and I wanted to make sure everybody in this country had those same blessings.  (Applause.)

And when we came together in 2008 -- Democrats, but also some Republicans and independents -- it was because we shared that belief, that bargain, and we had a sense that it was slipping away from us.  We had gone through a decade where hard work didn't always translate into higher wages or higher incomes, and folks acting responsibly didn't always get ahead.  And that was before the worst financial crisis and the worst economic crisis of our lifetimes, which left millions more unemployed, and it looked like they were going to lose their homes, and struggling that much more to keep up with the rising cost of health care or a college education.

But for the last three and a half years, I have not forgotten why I got into politics, and I have not forgotten those values.  (Applause.)  And I haven't forgotten why we came together -- because we wanted to put this country back on a track where everybody had a fair shot and everybody did their fair share and everybody played by the same set of rules.  (Applause.)

And what has kept me going, for all the progress we've made -- 4.5 million new jobs, and half a million new manufacturing jobs, and us stabilizing the financial system and averting a Great Depression, and investing in advanced manufacturing -- for all the progress that we've made, what has kept me going every single day is remembering that thing that ties us together, that binds us as a people, and understanding that no matter what we went through, no matter how many times we get knocked down, that basic character of America does not change.  Who we are does not change.  (Applause.)  What we believe, the values we hold dear, the importance we place on hard work and that work being rewarded whether you are starting a small business or punching a clock -- that idea that you can make it if you try here in America, that's what we've been fighting for.

Yes, we've been trying to put people back to work, but our goal has not been to just get us back to where we were in 2007.  Our goal has been to rebuild an economy that lasts for everybody, for all people.  (Applause.)  And I am absolutely convinced that we are on that path.  And we are not going backwards.  And that's why I'm running for a second term as President of the United States of America.  (Applause.)

Now, I have to tell you, there are some who say, well, this is part of America's fate as it enters into the 21st century -- that other countries are rising and we're declining.  And I just don't buy that.

AUDIENCE:  No!

THE PRESIDENT:  What's holding us back is not -- it's not the lack of new ideas or big ideas, or policy prescriptions that could make a difference in education or housing or health care, or you name it.  What's been holding us back is a stalemate in Washington.  And this is not just about two candidates or two political parties.  This is about two fundamentally different visions for where we take our country.  (Applause.)

My opponent, and his allies in Congress, they've got a particular view about how you grow the economy -- top-down economics.

AUDIENCE:  Booo --

THE PRESIDENT:  Their basic view is that if you take the Bush tax cuts and on top of that you then layer on $5 trillion more of tax cuts, mostly for the wealthy, and you eliminate regulations on polluters or the regulations we put in place to prevent another meltdown on Wall Street, or regulations to make sure that folks aren't being taken advantage of by unscrupulous lenders -- that if you just eliminate government intrusion into the market and let folks at the very top maximize their profits, that we'll all do better, we'll all be better off.

AUDIENCE:  Booo --

THE PRESIDENT:  I mean, that's their theory -- and it is a theory.  (Laughter.)  And you know, it would be okay for them to make that argument if we hadn't just spent close to a decade trying their theory -- (applause) -- which resulted in the most sluggish job growth in decades, income and wages for ordinary folks going down, rising inequality, surpluses turned into deficits, culminating in the worst economic crisis in our lifetimes.

Now, I don't know about how you guys operate in your lives, but my general rule is if I do something and it just really doesn't work out -- (laughter) -- then I try to do something different the next time.  (Applause.)  

So I've got a different idea.

AUDIENCE:  We love you!

THE PRESIDENT:  I love you back.  (Applause.)

But let me tell you how I think about it.  See, I don't believe in top-down economics.  I believe in middle-out economics. I believe in bottom-up economics.  I believe that when you give everybody a shot and everybody is able to work hard and look after their families, everybody does better -- (applause) -- including, by the way, folks at the top.  Small businesses and large businesses -- suddenly they've got customers because those customers got some money in their pockets.  (Applause.)  The history of how we built this country was everybody having a chance to pursue their dreams and, together, us building opportunity that made us the envy of the world.

And so, I don't believe that we should try once again something that didn't work.  I think what we need to do is keep pursuing a strategy that says, let's make the investments in the American people that will help us grow but will also create ladders of opportunity for everybody.  (Applause.)

So let me be specific.  When my opponent wanted to "let Detroit go bankrupt" --

AUDIENCE:  Booo --

THE PRESIDENT:  -- I said, first of all, it's going to cost us a million jobs.  Second of all, I believe in the American worker and I believe in American ingenuity.  (Applause.)  And so we got management and workers together, and guess what -- three and a half years later G.M. is the number-one automaker again.  (Applause.)  The auto industry is roaring back and they're building better cars and more fuel-efficient cars than ever.  That's an example of what America can do when we work together.  (Applause.)

But it's not just the auto industry.  Whether we're talking about advanced manufacturing of batteries that will help us run electric cars, or wind turbines, or solar panels -- I believe in making things here in America.  And I believe in inventing things here in America.  (Applause.)

And Governor Romney, his main calling card for running for office is his business experience, and so, understandably, the American people have been asking, well, let's find out what you've been doing.  (Laughter.)  And if your main experience is investing in companies that are called "pioneers" of outsourcing, then that indicates that we've got a different vision, because I don't want to be a pioneer of outsourcing. I want to be a pioneer of insourcing.  (Applause.)  I want to stop giving tax breaks to companies that are shipping jobs overseas.  I want to give tax breaks to companies that are investing right here in Austin -- (applause) -- investing right here in the United States of America, betting on American workers, making American products that we sell, stamped with three proud words:  Made in America.  That's why I'm running for President of the United States again. (Applause.)

AUDIENCE:  Four more years!  Four more years!  Four more years!

THE PRESIDENT:  In 2008, I said I'd end the war in Iraq.  (Applause.)  Thanks to the brave men and women in uniform that serve us with such valor, I was able to keep that promise.  (Applause.)  I said we'd go after bin Laden.  (Applause.)  Thanks to our men and women in uniform, I kept that promise.  (Applause.)  We are now winding down the war in Afghanistan and starting to bring our troops home.  (Applause.)

And so, after a decade of war, what I've said is let's take some of the savings, use half of it to help pay down our deficit; let's use the other half to do some nation-building here at home. (Applause.)  Let's rebuild our roads and our bridges.  Let's build broadband lines into rural communities.  Let's build high-speed rail that helps move people and services all across this country.  Let's invest in basic research and innovation that has made places like Austin a hotbed of entrepreneurship and invention.  (Applause.)  

We've got tens of thousands of folks who lost their jobs in the construction industry after the housing bubble went burst.  Let's put them to work rebuilding America.  That's what we do best.  (Applause.)  And by making those investments, we're not just putting people back to work right now, we're laying the foundation for economic growth for decades to come.  That's my vision for America.  (Applause.)

Now, Mr. Romney disagrees.  He said ending the war in Iraq as I did was "tragic."

AUDIENCE:  Booo --

THE PRESIDENT:  He said he wouldn't set a timeline in Afghanistan.

AUDIENCE:  Booo --

THE PRESIDENT:  I've got a different approach.  And ultimately, you're the ones who are going to be able to settle this dispute -- with your vote.  That's what our democracy is all about.  (Applause.)

I'm running again because we've done some great work reforming our education system, but we've got more work to do.  (Applause.)  I want to hire outstanding new teachers, especially in math and science.  We succeeded in preventing student loan rates from doubling.  (Applause.)  But we've got more work to do to bring down college tuition costs to make it affordable for every young person.  (Applause.)

I want to expand access to community colleges for 2 million more Americans so they get trained for the jobs that people are hiring for right now.  A higher education is no longer a luxury. It is an economic imperative in the 21st century.  It is part of what we need to succeed in this global economy.  And I'm going to fight for every young person who is willing to work hard to get an education.  (Applause.)  That's why I'm running for a second term as President of the United States.

So on issue after issue, there is a fundamental difference. On housing, Mr. Romney says let's just let foreclosures happen and the market will bottom out.  I want to make sure that every American who right now owns a home can refinance their homes at historically low rates -- put $3,000 in the pocket of every American.  Not only will you spend that and create more customers for businesses, but it can also help stabilize the housing market.

And when it comes to immigration, Mr. Romney thinks that the Arizona law should be "a model for the nation."

AUDIENCE:  Booo --

THE PRESIDENT:  I believe we're a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants.  (Applause.)  We've worked hard on border security.  But I've also said that when you've got young people in this country who have been raised as Americans, who believe in America, then I want to give them a chance to succeed here in America.  (Applause.)  It's the right thing to do.  (Applause.)

I don't want to go back to the days when fighting for the country you love depended on who you love.  We ended "don't ask, don't tell".  We're not going to go back there.  (Applause.)

We're not going to roll back Wall Street reform.  We know the costs when you've got lax regulation -- everybody is affected, everybody pays a price.

And we are not rolling back health care reform.  (Applause.) The Supreme Court has spoken.  We are moving forward.  (Applause.)  If you've got health care, the only thing that now happens to you -- you're not paying a tax -- the only thing that's happening to you is that you have more security, because insurance companies can't jerk you around.  Young people can stay on their parent's plan until they're 26 years old.  (Applause.)

Seniors are going to see lower prescription drug prices.  Everybody is going to get free preventive care, including women. (Applause.)

And by the way, insurance companies can't charge women more than men now.  (Applause.)  Which reminds me, we're not ending funding for Planned Parenthood.  I think women should have control of their own health care choices just like men.  (Applause.)  We're not going backwards.

If you don't have health care, then we're going to help you get it.  And the only people who may have a problem with this law are folks who can afford health care but aren't buying it, wait until they get sick and then going to the emergency room and expecting everybody else to pick up the tab.  That's not responsibility.  That's not consistent with who we are.

So we're going to move forward on health care -- (applause) -- which brings me to one last issue, this whole issue of deficits and debt.  Now, the other side says this is the most important issue, we're concerned for future generations.  Now, if you are truly concerned about deficits and debt, it's puzzling that you would then propose a $5 trillion tax cut that would give the average millionaire a $250,000 tax break, and to pay for it you would then have to gut education, gut investments in science and research, gut our transportation spending, voucherize Medicare, oh, and in the process, eventually, you're probably going to have to raise taxes on middle-class families.

AUDIENCE:  No!

THE PRESIDENT:  Now, we've already cut a trillion dollars.  And I don't believe every government program works.  I don't believe that government can help folks who don't want to help themselves.  So we've got to continue to make government more efficient and more effective and more customer-friendly, but we're not going to turn back the clock to the days when seniors had to fend for themselves, where poor children are on their own, where we're not making investments in education and falling further and further behind other countries.

AUDIENCE:  No!

THE PRESIDENT:  So what I said is let's ask folks like me, who have been incredibly blessed by this country, to do a little bit more.

AUDIENCE:  Yes!

THE PRESIDENT:  What I've said is -- I told Congress last week, let's go ahead and say everybody who's making $250,000 a year or less, your income taxes will not go up one dime, period. (Applause.)  That includes 98 percent of Americans, 97 percent of small businesses.  (Applause.)  But for folks like me, we can afford to do a little bit more to make sure we are investing in America's future.

And by the way, we tried that too, Austin.  A guy named Bill Clinton tried it, and we took deficits and turned them into surpluses, created 23 million new jobs.  (Applause.)  And by the way, wealthy people did really well also -- because, again, if folks in the middle class are doing well, everybody does well.

It's that basic principle.  Abraham Lincoln said that there are some things we do better together.  We are entrepreneurs, we are risk-takers, we're rugged individualists, but there are some things we do better together.  That's how we financed the GI Bill that created the largest middle class in history.  (Applause.)  That's how we built the Hoover Dam and the Golden Gate Bridge.  That's how we sent a man to the moon.  (Applause.)  That's how the Internet came to happen -- because we recognized there are some things we do well together and we rise or fall as one nation, as one people.  (Applause.)  

And so here's the good news, is that in this election, you will have an opportunity to choose between these two visions, and that's the way democracy should work.  Now, I will say that there's going to be about -- well, who knows how much money is going to be spent.  We've got folks writing $10 million checks --

AUDIENCE:  Booo --

THE PRESIDENT:  -- running negative ads with scary voices.  (Laughter.)  And it's basically the same message every time.  You know, they've got variations on a theme, but basically these folks know they can't sell those tired economic theories that didn't work last time.  So what they're going to do is just to say, the economy is not where it needs to be, and it's Obama's fault.  That's what they'll say over and over again, and they'll just keep repeating it and they hope it works.

Now, this is a plan to win an election, but it's not a plan to create jobs.  It's not a plan to grow the middle class.

AUDIENCE:  No!

THE PRESIDENT:  And I've got to say, I'd be pretty concerned about it except for what you taught me.  What you taught me in '08, what I learned in those early campaigns traveling around the state and going to VFW halls and diners, and sitting in people's living rooms, listening to their stories -- what you taught me was that when the American people focus and recognize the stakes, and when they think back to the values that propelled their parents and their grandparents and their great-grandparents forward in the face of very difficult times -- those folks, those generations who came here -- some as immigrants, some not of their own accord, working in farms or ranches or factories or mills or mines -- when the American people tap into what is true and good, that grit and determination and just neighborliness that built this country -- you guys can't be stopped.  It doesn't matter how much money the other side spends -- you can't be stopped.  (Applause.)

And so the question is going to be how bad do we want it?  How bad are we willing to work for it?  How committed are we to making sure that our kids get a great education?  How committed are we to making sure that Social Security and Medicare are there for folks in the future?  How committed are we to making sure that our veterans, who have served us valiantly, that we're serving them as well as they've served us?  How committed are we to bringing down our deficit in a balanced way?  (Applause.)  How committed are we to continuing to invest in science and research? How committed are we to that basic American bargain that says if you work hard, you can get ahead?

In 2008, I tried to just make promises that I could keep.  And one of those promises, I said to you I'm not a perfect man -- I promised -- talk to Michelle now -- (laughter) -- not a perfect man.  I said I wouldn't be a perfect President.  But what I said was that I would always tell you where I stood, I'd always tell you what I thought, and I would spend every single waking hour, as long as I had the privilege of being your President, fighting for you, thinking about you.  (Applause.)  Because in you, I saw me. In you, I saw my family.  In your grandparents, I saw my grandparents.  And in your kids, I see my kids.

Because of you, because of my faith in you -- through all the ups and downs -- I can say I have kept that promise.  (Applause.)  And if you still believe in me, if you are willing to stand up with me -- (applause) -- if you're willing to knock on doors for me and make phone calls for me and talk to your friends and neighbors for me, and mobilize and organize -- then we will finish what we started in 2008.  (Applause.)  And we will build this middle class and grow this economy so it works for everybody.  And we will remind the world why the United States of America is the greatest nation on Earth.  (Applause.)

God bless you.  God bless the United States of America.  (Applause.)

President Barack Obama made a series of fundraising stops in Texas yesterday, including a lunch in San Antonio with Mayor Joaquin Castro and Eva Longoria, and a rally at Austin Music Hall with Jerry Jeff Walker. It was clear from the size and enthusiasm of the crowds that Texas Democrats are excited to work hard to re-elect the President. It was plainly evident from President Obama's speech in Austin that he's fired up and ready to go.

The President's speech, which lasted a half-hour and was punctuated frequently by deafening cheers from the 1000-person crowd -- framed the election as a choice between two fundamentally different views of our economy. President Obama wants to build an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, invest in education and infrastructure, and build the middle class, because when the American middle class does well, everyone does well. Meanwhile, Mitt Romney seems focused on giving tax cuts to wealthiest Americans, rewarding companies that offshore American jobs to other countries, shutting down Planned Parenthood, and gutting education opportunities.

The speech was solid, its delivery was energetic, and best of all, while Obama was clearly giving the supportive crowd some red meat, the core message still hewed to basic principles of fairness that should resonate with a wide swath of Americans.

More photos and observations below the jump

Despite waiting in line outside the Austin Music Hall in an extraordinarily humid July day, the capacity crowd, estimated at 1000, was excited to see the President. Chants of "four more years!" filled the venue while supporters waited for the President to arrive.

President Obama quickly launched into a solid stump speech hitting on major campaign themes: economic fairness, opportunity for all Americans, and not going back to the failed Republican policies of the last administration.

Energetic sign language interpreters repeated the speech for the hearing impaired, who were close to the stage. That has to be one of the more fun and unique roles on the campaign trail: sign language interpreter for the President!

The President enumerated his main successes in the past four years, including ending the war in Iraq, drawing down troops in Afghanistan, passing landmark health insurance reform, ending deportation of DREAM Act eligible students, and ending "Don't Ask Don't Tell," to huge cheers. He also struck a more thoughtful tone in detailing the tremendous economic discrepancies between his policies and those of Romney's.

After the speech, the President worked the crowd in the front, fist-bumping, baby-hugging, and photo-posing his way out of the room, on to his final stop in Texas before returning late last night to Washington DC.

President Barack Obama is making what will likely be his last fundraising swing before November through Central Texas today, with stops in San Antonio and Austin.

First up, a lunch in San Antonio that may be the biggest fundraiser for a Democrat in the history of the city. The San Antonio Express News reports that the event had to be moved to the Convention Center ballroom, the biggest venue in the city, once ticket sales soared to 1000 seats. Hosts for the event include Mayor Julian Castro, Congressman Charlie Gonzalez, and actress Eva Longoria.

Next, Obama heads up to Austin for an event at the Austin Music Hall featuring a musical performance by Jerry Jeff Walker. The event starts at 3:00 p.m. Additionally, Obama supporters are holding a rally outside of the event to show enthusiasm for re-electing the President.

If you are attending the event, we have heard that large SLR-style cameras are not allowed inside the venue. However, small point-and-shoot cameras and cell phone cameras are permitted. Expect road closures and delays around downtown Austin during the afternoon. Click here for a list of CapMetro route changes around the impacted area.

It's great to see such outpouring of support for the President here in Texas. Kudos to the event co-chairs who have made all of these events a huge success. Even with the popularity of our President, it takes a lot of work to sell so many tickets to these events, so thank you to the folks who are making sure the President's campaign has the resources it needs to do everything from opening field offices to pushing back against right-wing smears.

For those who might scoff at the volley of fundraising emails or take it for granted that the President will raise enough to compete, remember that Republican billionaires are investing vast sums in Super PACs and committed to using their wealth to defeat Barack Obama at any cost. Despite the President's raising $71 million from 706,000 donors in June, Mitt Romney raised $106 million. Romney won't disclose who his campaign bundlers are, but it's safe to say that he enjoys the enthusiastic support of Wall Street bazillionaires and corporate fat cats who want a president who caters to the top 0.001%, which Romney certainly will do because he is the top 0.001%.

President Obama is the first sitting president who will likely be outspent by his challenger and the associated Super PACs and outside groups bolstered by Citizens United. If the President does not win re-election in November, it will be because corporate interests and wealthy billionaires decided that they could simply buy our democracy.

Today's events should be fun, so whether you're attending a fundraiser or just showing your support outside, thanks to everyone who's got the President's back!