Bada Bing, Bada Boom. That should just about do it. Cue the exit music, maestro. Coming back from that deficit would require Lazarus-like qualities. Especially since, from what I've heard via the rumor mill, if push came to shove, more than two Republicans might end up voting against the FSC chairman. There are several R swing votes who'd probably appreciate not being forced to make a public decision. Now, it seems unlikely they'll be required to do so."The Democrats are not going to vote for him, and there are two Republicans that are not," said Senate Nominations Committee Chairman Bob Deuell, R-Greenville. It takes a two-thirds vote of the Senate to confirm the governor's appointees. There are 19 Senate Republicans and 11 Democrats.
"He probably thought he could talk a couple of Democrats into voting for him. I don't think he can talk four" into it, Deuell said.
What I think did in the nomination was a) Bradley's bellicose performance at the Nominations Committee where he openly insulted Sen. Rodney Ellis, and b) his arrogance, duplicity and manipulation of fellow Republican appointees to the Forensic Science Commission. In his latest column, Rick Casey at the Houston Chronicle recounts an episode exemplifying the latter behavior:
In July, he presented the commission with an unsigned memorandum finding that it didn't have jurisdiction over the Willingham case and claimed it was "drafted, reviewed and edited through the combined efforts of the two members of the FSC who are lawyers, counsel for the Attorney General's Office."
When that was exposed as untrue, Bradley, who couldn't quite admit that he wrote the memo, joined in an 8-0 vote rejecting its conclusions.
Bradley's attitude toward the use of science was demonstrated back in 2002 when, on an Internet bulletin board for Texas prosecutors, he responded to a prosecutor who wanted a suspect to waive any further DNA testing as a condition of a plea bargain.
"A better approach might be to get a written agreement that all the evidence can be destroyed after the conviction and sentencing. Then, there is nothing left to retest."
The reason it should be destroyed is that if the defendant later shows evidence he is innocent, he might get his earlier agreement set aside.
"Innocence, though, has proven to trump most anything," Bradley wrote, as if this is a problem.
I asked him what interest the state has in destroying evidence, especially when scores of Texas convicts have been found innocent based on DNA testing after serving years in prison.
He said we need finality and painted a picture of thousands of inmates filing endless appeals.