The state of Texas allows teenagers to marry - as young as 16 with parental consent. It used to be 14, but that was changed in the last legislative session as a direct response to the FLDS compound. And that was someone else's description, which I was quoting.

For what it's worth, one of my daughter's preschool teachers was married when she was 15; I believe she had two of her children before she turned 20. She's been married now for 18 years and was an excellent teacher, as well as being a lovely and warm person.

Texas' Supreme Court rules that it's not child abuse to raise children in an environment where the rape of teenage girls is routine. Oh wait, sorry, where the forcible marriage of teenage girls against their will to creepy old dudes with other wives is routine.

No, actually, that's not what they ruled at all. They ruled that the state of Texas did not follow the law when it acted to remove children from their parents when there was no immediate physical danger to them, as the law requires. (Actually, they upheld a lower court ruling to that effect.) Your characterization here is ignorant. Among many other things, the state's CPS lied about the number of under-18 mothers at the compound - see here for more. This is a matter of the state way overreaching its authority, and getting justifiably rebuked for it.

I'm in Houston, and Skelly is very much for real. He's wowing people here, he's got a great team in place, and he's scaring Culberson. See the following posts for more info:

Local GOP chair worries about Culberson
Culberson worries about Culberson
Poll memo

Don't forget Texas. I'd put our chances of knocking off Box Turtle Cornyn at least as high as OK, KS, KY, and NC.

I can tell you that there are two potential candidates for TX-10. I met one of them today at a Harris County Democratic Party event, a young fellow named Dan Grant, who spent a year in Iraq as a civilian consultant; the other fellow I saw but did not get to meet - his name is (I think) Joe Don Doherty.

I can also tell you that there is an active grassroots movement already in place for TX-10, which is basically a 55-56% GOP district right now, based on 2006 returns. Keep an eye on this one.

As for the others, James Wright in TX-08 is a perennial candidate and basically a nut. I like "Run Everywhere" as much as the next guy, but he's a total zero. The other repeat candidates are all good guys running in tough districts. Shane Sklar ran ahead of just about every other Dem in CD14. It's my understanding that Conrad Allen is out in TX-02, but Binderim may still be in it for a rerun.

One person I'm hoping will run again, with better funding this time, is Mary Beth Harrell in TX-31. She's an awesome person, and the incumbent (John Carter), will have a lot of crazy-assed things to defend if he can be properly called on them.

Just wanted to point out that the entire delegation, including two (Chet Edwards and Nick Lampson) who were elected in deep red districts (re-elected, in Edwards' case) and one (Henry Cuellar) who was targeted for elimination by the netroots (myself included) last year, voted Yes on all six bills. Props to them all!

I think Dems will have a decent shot at the Governor's mansion in 2010, and should have a very good shot at a House majority. The Senate, no chance - 17-14 is the best I can imagine, and that's a looong shot. Bottom line, if the Dems don't have control over at least one part of the redistricting process, something has gone wrong.

I think you need to look at the FEC report for TX22 a bit more closely. Tom DeLay did not spend $3 million on his race - the only race he was really in was the GOP primary, and he did not spend much on that. He has, however, spent a buttload of money from his campaign warchest on his legal defense. This has been pretty well documented in the MSM and the blogs.

Bottom line, Lampson outspent the GOP in this race. DeLay's money was spent on keeping him out of jail, not in office.

The one State Senate seat the Dems lost belonged to a throwback rural DINO who generally voted as a conservative. It was no great loss. In practical terms, the Dems have 11 of the 31 seats, which is enough to prevent bills to come to the floor based on the traditional rule that requires a two-thirds vote for legislation to get a full floor debate. The retiring Dem was seldom a vote against bringing bills to the floor.

As noted in my previous comment, Dems gained five seats in the State House (plus another picked up in a January special election) and now have 69 seats to the R's 80. One seat is open pending a special election due to the death in September of a Republican incumbent.

No House Dems were defeated, and all open seats were successfully defended. It was as good a year for Dems in the House as one could have hoped.

TEXAS
SENATE: D=11; R=20 (D=no change; R+1)
HOUSE: D=65; R=85 (D+1)

Actually, Dems won five seats in the State House, in addition to one they had picked up in a special election back in January. The total is currently R=80, D=69, with one open R seat after an incumbent passed away in September. There will be a special election to fill that seat in December, at the same time as the TX-23 Congressional special election.

TX. Cornyn.  1.  KBH was a little closer than we thought.  Cornyn's not goin' anywhere but, HEY KINKY, wanna make this one interesting?

Pardon my French, but fuck Kinky. He shit on the Democrats at every opportunity. During his campaign for Governor, he:

1) Advocated a fence along the Mexico border, while calling for the National Guard to patrol it;

2) Advocated for prayer in public schools;

3) Told wingnut talk radio host/State Senator-elect Dan Patrick that he'd sign Patrick's trigger bill (to outlaw all abortions in the event Roe v Wade is overturned); and

4) Called Katrina evacuees "crackheads and thugs".

Kinky's campaign did nothing to help Dems in Texas. Let him collect his book and TV millions, which was the point of his candidacy from the beginning. Texas Dems deserve a real candidate and no sideshow freak distractions.

Sorry, but the joke that was Kinky became unfunny a long time ago.

FYI, Cuellar is NOT unopposed. His district was redrawn as part of the SCOTUS redistricting ruling, and as such he's in a special election. He has two opponents in this race.

TX-22, a sure Democratic pickup, was also not included because no polls have been released for the district.

Yes, there have been. And Lampson has a big lead.

With all due respect, you missed three races in Texas that are more likely to be competitive than the ones you did list.

TX23: This newly-redrawn district is about 53-47 GOP now, and a big field of Dems led by former Netroots candidate Ciro Rodriguez has a great shot of forcing incumbent Rep. Henry Bonilla into a runoff. If the Dems don't win this seat this year, it will be a top takeover target in 2008.

TX14: Shane Sklar is a polished, accomplished, and aggressive candidate running against the dinosaur Ron Paul in a district that's largely new to Paul (he ran uncontested in the re-redistricted TX14 in 2004). Sklar is getting fundraising help from Nick Lampson, and he will make a race out of this.

TX31: Mary Beth Harrell has done possibly the best job of getting free media as any of our non-CD22 candidates, thanks in part to her opponent's persistent case of foot in mouth disease. Harrell has a son on active duty in Iraq, and she's made good headway with veterans' organizations in the area. The district is mostly in Williamson County, which is one of a handful of counties whose vote for George W. Bush declined from 2000 to 2004, and there's a great slate of downballot Dems running there as well. Keep an eye on TX31 and Mary Beth Harrell.

Courage's ad is missing simple word, but a key one.  If candidates won't name names, voters won't trust them, just as they did not trust Busby's credibility when she said she wanted to put a strong ethics package through Congress.

I understand where you're coming from, but just so we're clear, the new CD21 (it was one of the court-redrawn districts after the SCOTUS redistricting ruling) is considerably redder than the previous version, and that was a 60/40 district to begin with. The GOP index is now something like 65% here, according to the Secretary of State. They had to put all those Republicans they took away from Henry Bonilla somewhere, and that somewhere was the 21st.

Point is, this is not a swing district. It won't be won by driving up Democratic turnout - there aren't enough Democrats in the district. Courage has to reach across the aisle. That's just the way it is in CD21.