Recently, the Texas Speaker of the House appeared to be pretty drunk in the course of his duty. It reminded me of the famous "Whiskey Speech" given by the Mississippi legislator, Noah S. "Soggy" Sweat, in 1954. Politics at it's finest.
My friends, I had not intended to discuss this controversial subject at this particular time. However, I want you to know that I do not shun controversy. On the contrary, I will take a stand on any issue at any time, regardless of how fraught with controversy it might be. You have asked me how I feel about whiskey. All right, here is how I feel about whiskey:
If when you say whiskey you mean the devil’s brew, the poison scourge, the bloody monster, that defiles innocence, dethrones reason, destroys the home, creates misery and poverty, yea, literally takes the bread from the mouths of little children; if you mean the evil drink that topples the Christian man and woman from the pinnacle of righteous, gracious living into the bottomless pit of degradation, and despair, and shame and helplessness, and hopelessness, then certainly I am against it.
But, if when you say whiskey you mean the oil of conversation, the philosophic wine, the ale that is consumed when good fellows get together, that puts a song in their hearts and laughter on their lips, and the warm glow of contentment in their eyes; if you mean Christmas cheer; if you mean the stimulating drink that puts the spring in the old gentleman’s step on a frosty, crispy morning; if you mean the drink which enables a man to magnify his joy, and his happiness, and to forget, if only for a little while, life’s great tragedies, and heartaches, and sorrows; if you mean that drink, the sale of which pours into our treasuries untold millions of dollars, which are used to provide tender care for our little crippled children, our blind, our deaf, our dumb, our pitiful aged and infirm; to build highways and hospitals and schools, then certainly I am for it.
This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise.
You're right, one of the great political speeches in American history.
ReplyDeleteThat is a great one!
ReplyDeleteI am all for the second, having just had an enjoyable draft with my lovely bride, down on the water looking over the sound, in the company of a gracious innkeeper and friends, and a motorcycle ride along the valley homeward, fragrant with spring.
Yikes. If Phelan wasn't in his cups, he should see his doctor about having suffered a stroke. That was pretty severe.
ReplyDeletePaxton, who may be wrong everywhere else, is right that failing to pass election-securing mechanisms ought to be a career killer by itself. That's the one thing that has to be done if there's any hope in restoring faith in the republic or the government.
ReplyDeleteWere that our politicians today were near as eloquent as this, sober or drunk. How far we have fallen.
ReplyDeleteIt's unfortunate Paxton made the choices he did... he's been bang on regarding a number of actions.
ReplyDeleteTex and I both mentioned recent local Texas elections. Locally, my "side" lost.
ReplyDeleteI don't assert election fraud. I do think I have reason to call "shenanigans!" The taxing authority is by law restricted from electioneering - advocating, advertising, etc -- in favor of a measure they've put before voter/taxpayers. But "information" is allowed. And we got a lot of it. Also, "independent" political action committees PAc are allowed to electioneer wildly. (Who would stop them? How?) So if a PAC spends a half million to secure the results on multi-million dollar projects for developers, architects, contractors etc; it's childish for local voters to argue it's unfair. Even when it is.
Now Texas law attempts to protect the most reliable voters/taxpayers with various "caps" and "exemptions" on property taxes. These are primarily caps for homeowners and exemptions for the elderly. The PACs and authority promoting the proposal to tax and spend on local construction projects were quite loud in informing voters that the tax increases would NOT affect old homeowners. (Much, I suppose)
My analysis of voting patterns by ballot style -- which loosely correlates to neighborhoods by age and income demographics -- indicated the older white collar home owning voters put up a majority against the tax-and-spend proposal. However, the voters of all ages in apartment complexes and mobile home parks -- who do NOT and WOULD never benefit from property tax caps and exemptions -- had unusually high turnout. And among those neighborhoods, the vote went in favor of the PAC.
I suspect the PAC had paid agents "walking around" knocking on doors and telling the one side of the decision. I suspect the effort began before the proposal was finalized, with the door-knockers doing pre-season voter registration. The so-called "ground game" of a political campaign. Much easier to reach a few hundred voters per day in an apartment building than a neighborhood. All completely legal, even in some respects admirable.
BUT...