Gov. Rick Perry sent a tough talkin’ letter to Kathleen Sebelius this morning, not so kindly asking the health and human services secretary to tell President Barack Obama that Texas wouldn’t be expanding Medicaid or setting up an insurance marketplace. Both provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - Obamacare, if you prefer - “represent brazen intrusions into the sovereignty of our state,” Perry wrote.

The Texas Legislature will have the actual say on whether to expand Medicaid or let some $13 billion of Texans’ federal tax money potentially go to states that want to expand their own Medicaid programs. And if Texas refuses to establish an insurance exchange, then the federal government will do it.

Perry ends his forget you to the 25 percent of Texans who don’t have health insurance by swearing that Obamacare’s “unsound encroachments will find no foothold” in Texas. And then, after a “Sincerely” of questionable sincerity, there it is, the signature, “Rick Perry,” printed in plain block letters except for an eye-catching flourish on the front leg of the “R” that underscores the “Rick” as it loops toward the gently curving tail of the “y” in “Perry.”

Such an odd signature for someone who so carefully presents himself as a squinty-eyed, stand-tall Texan.

I’m not alone in taking note of Perry’s unique signature. Others have done so over the years, and it caught the eye of ABC News last summer when Perry announced he was running for president and he punctuated his announcement by signing an Associated Press news alert informing media outlets that Perry had entered the presidential race. ABC asked Eileen Page, a handwriting expert, to analyze the signature. She said it indicates Perry’s “decisions are much more calculated than impulsive,” and that his signature says he has “a healthy sense of self-worth,” “sees the big picture of things” and is “a steady-as-you-go kind of person.”

“There’s a kind of defiance against authority,” Page told ABC, “which means he doesn’t like to be told what to do.”

Whatever the merits of Page’s assessment, Perry’s signature will always remind me of junior high, and of the handwriting of seventh-grade schoolgirls. The only thing missing is the smiley face over the “i.” Or, more appropriately for Perry’s letter to Sebelius, a frowny face.

The standard line is the U.S. Senate race in Texas was Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst’s to lose and lose it he did. His loss to Ted Cruz in Tuesday’s Republican primary runoff will rank among the biggest upsets in Texas political history. And it wasn’t even a close loss; Cruz cruised to a decisive, 14-point win.

There are many reasons why Dewhurst lost. His own presumption of victory - his political arrogance, if you prefer - kept him aloof from voters. For months he refused to participate in candidate forums. His absence from these forums allowed his opponents, chiefly Cruz, to define him as a moderate, which apparently is the worst thing a Republican can be these days. Dewhurst is moderate only if you’re striding toward the rightmost edge of the political spectrum, but by the time he began to engage the other candidates, enough damage had been done to defy him, by four percentage points, an outright victory in the May primary.

Dewhurst also is a dull speaker and a sluggish campaigner. Cruz is neither.

There’s a bit of poetic justice in Dewhurst’s defeat. The flawed redistricting map produced by the 2011 Legislature over which Dewhurst was a chief presiding officer generated a court battle that delayed the state’s primary by nearly three months, from March 6 to May 29. The delay gave Cruz the precious time he needed to build enough momentum to force a runoff - he just barely forced a runoff, but just barely was good enough. Once in a runoff, victory went from impossible for Cruz to possible to probable to expected. By Monday, the last day of the campaign before Tuesday’s vote, Dewhurst was so desperate to prove that he’s a true conservative (and truly, he is, not that it matters now) that he showed up at a Chick-fil-A in South Austin to buy a sandwich from the fast-food restaurant whose president, Dan Cathy, forthrightly opposes gay marriage.

Dewhurst, like Gov. Rick Perry and countless other Texas and national Republicans, has made a career out of bashing Washington and taking electoral advantage of anti-Washington sentiment. The trouble is, you can’t always control fire when you play with it. Anti-Washington is also anti-government, and Dewhurst, the sitting lieutenant governor, is government. He was beaten by a force he was unable to exploit. Perry, whose flirtation with tea partyers so far has been masterful, may find himself similarly burned if he decides to run for re-election in 2014.

So now a lieutenant governor, overwhelmingly rejected by Republican voters, will return to Austin in January to preside over a legislative session that will feature an even more radically conservative Legislature operating without the guidance of several key leaders because those leaders didn’t win their elections either. (Incumbents were definitely out of favor in this year’s Republican primary.) It’ll be an interesting session, to say the least. Fingers crossed it’s not also downright damaging.

Meanwhile, Cruz is the political celebrity of the moment - look for him to be given a prime speaking spot at this month’s Republican convention in Tampa, Fla. Barring some unforeseen circumstance, he will easily beat former state Rep. Paul Sadler in November’s general election and will become the state’s first Hispanic U.S. senator when he takes office in January. It’s assumed he’ll ally himself with Sens. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, Marco Rubio of Florida, Rand Paul of Kentucky and other tea party-affiliated Republicans. If this is where he chooses to reside, don’t be surprised if Cruz quickly emerges as the group’s intellectual and policy leader.

As so many Republican candidates have this election season, Cruz repeatedly defines himself as a “constitutional conservative.” When he met with the American-Statesman’s editorial board a few months ago, seeking and winning the board’s endorsement, I asked him near the end of his visit if it was possible to be a constitutional liberal. Sure, he answered.

He’s right, of course. Not that it’s anything he’ll ever bring up on his own. For one thing, he has his own fire to control now.

From Richard Clarke’s “Against All Enemies” and other books and articles written in the first several years after 9/11, we’ve long known that the Bush administration neglected to react to intelligence reports warning of a possible terrorist attack. President George W. Bush and his security team came into office focused on Saddam Hussein and Iraq, and that focus led Bush officials to downplay concerns about Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. After 9/11 it led the administration to divert attention and resources away from Afghanistan.

The latest reminder of this neglect appears in today’s New York Times, on this, the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. In an op-ed headlined “The Deafness Before the Storm,” Kurt Eichenwald writes about briefings Bush received before the infamous Aug. 6, 2001, briefing “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.,” which was declassified in 2004 as a result of the 9/11 Commission’s investigation of the events leading up to 9/11.

Eichenwald informs readers that there were several other briefings before the Aug. 6 briefing, and that these other briefings more urgently warned of a planned terrorist operation. Eichenwald mentions briefings dated May 1, June 22, June 29, July 1 and July 24 and writes that those briefings, combined with other records, lead to “an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.”

Partially explaining the administration’s inaction before 9/11, Eichenwald writes, were arguments by some administration officials dismissing the warning about bin Laden as “just bluster,” disinformation designed to take attention away from the real threat, Saddam’s Iraq:

An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.

Those same neoconservatives would, 18 months later, carry the nation into an unnecessary and unwarranted war with Iraq.

No one will ever know whether 9/11 could have been prevented. We do know that in the late spring and summer of 2001 “the system was blinking red,” as former CIA director George Tenet described it. (Chapter 8 of “The 9/11 Commission Report” summarizes missed clues about a pending attack and missed opportunities to possibly stop it.) Still, dots went unconnected, to revive a descriptive phrase from the investigations into 9/11.

Granted, the intelligence briefings Bush received lacked specificity about when and where an attack might take place. But given their urgency, they should have prompted action, even if action was limited to ordering the FAA and other government agencies to heighten security.

That the United States would react to the Sept. 11 attacks was a given. What the reaction would be was not. It’s the reaction, and the course it set, that most interests me, that continues to challenge who we are as a nation.

When presidents react to major events, they put in place policies and bureaucracies that subsequent presidents find difficult, even impossible, to change, much less reverse or dismantle (see President Barack Obama, closing of prison at Guantanamo Bay). Not only do subsequent presidents maintain their predecessor’s policies (see Obama, warrantless surveillance), they also sometimes double down on those policies (see Obama, drone strikes). Today, we remember the events and victims of Sept. 11, 2001. Today, tomorrow and for years to come, we live 9/11’s consequences.

U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul, the Austin Republican who’s a member of the House committees on foreign affairs and homeland security, released this statement this morning about Tuesday’s breach of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans:

The Arab spring has turned into an Arab winter. The attacks on America’s embassy and consulate and the assassination of our ambassador to Libya and his staff are acts of aggression against the United States that should be condemned in the strongest terms. The manner in which these events occurred is a disgrace to the American people, as was this administration’s apologetic response that fails to defend our nation’s liberties abroad. This serves as a reminder that while we have made progress in the war on terror, Americans remain in the cross hairs of terrorist regimes and others who prefer aggression over tolerance.

McCaul’s statement neglects to mention Stevens by name or include a line of condolence. In calling “this administration’s apologetic response” to Tuesday’s violence “a disgrace,” McCaul is following the lead of Mitt Romney, who last night said it was “disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”

This is nonsense — disgraceful itself — and is based on a statement issued by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo trying to calm tensions generated by a YouTube clip of an anti-Islam film called “The Innocence of Muslims,” and released before protesters breached the embassy’s walls. Further, the statement, critical of “continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims,” was released before the attacks in Libya. Here’s a timeline on what was issued when, courtesy of The Atlantic.

The embassy in Cairo condemned the breach of its compound and Obama has condemned the attack in Libya. This morning, Obama dispatched Marines to Libya and heightened security at other embassies. No one should be surprised if we hear in the next few weeks that a drone strike has taken out Libyan militants believed to be responsible for the attack on the consulate. What Romney’s response would be if he were president is unknown; he has offered no clues other than to clumsily pounce on Obama in an attempt to exploit Stevens’ death for political gain.

McCaul ends his statement with a reference to the continuing threat posed by “terrorist regimes and others who prefer aggression over tolerance.” Egypt and Libya are in transitional phases after decades of authoritarian rule. Where their transitions will take them is anyone’s guess, but neither is currently listed as a state sponsor of terrorism by the United States. The U.S. has never listed Egypt as a “terrorist regime,” to use McCaul’s phrase, and the Bush administration removed Libya from the terrorism list in 2006.

As for those “others who prefer aggression over tolerance,” it bewilders my Western point of view that some Muslims — whether radical, whipped into a frenzy by extremist clerics, insecure in their own religion, or for whatever reason — react violently to books, movies and cartoons that ridicule, satirize, criticize or otherwise explore Islam. At the same time, McCaul fails to recognize that it was an act of aggressive intolerance by the makers of “The Innocence of Muslims” — the equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater — that led to Tuesday’s violence. No one should apologize for acknowledging as much — rights have responsibilities, after all — or for criticizing an act of provocation for the violence it provokes.

The first presidential debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney starts tonight at 8. The theme is domestic issues. Questions will focus on the economy, health care, the role of government.

Presidential debates are political theater, political sport. They feature scripted answers to broadly predictable questions. Zingers are memorized, awaiting their moment. Moderators are familiar, comfortable to candidates and audience. (Really familiar: Tonight’s moderator is Jim Lehrer and tonight’s debate is Lehrer’s 11th as moderator.) We will learn nothing about each candidate and his position on the issues that we don’t already know.

But issues and policies are not why we watch the debates: We watch to receive reassurance from our candidate that he can hold his own and to hope the other candidate makes a mistake - says or does something stupid that will irreparably harm his campaign and send it spiraling toward defeat.

Most presidential debates produce at least one line or act the media will chew on for days and late-night comics will exploit for laughs until everything else about a debate disappears from memory. It can occur on script or off. Ronald Reagan’s “There you go again” to Jimmy Carter in 1980 and “I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience” in response to a question about his age during his second debate with Walter Mondale in 1984. Michael Dukakis’ emotionless response to a hypothetical question about his wife, rape and the death penalty in 1988. George H.W. Bush checking his watch in 1992. Al Gore’s sighs in 2000. George W. Bush’s plaintive plea in 2004 that being president was “hard work.”

Memorable moments, each one, but how many votes did each one change? (We can’t count Rick Perry’s “oops” moment, which occurred during a primary debate, not a general election debate, and which was just the last in a string of debate blunders by a floundering Perry.) President Gerald Ford’s “There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe” is probably the biggest gaffe in presidential debate history, but it didn’t doom his candidacy.

It occurred Oct. 6, 1976, during the second of three debates between Ford and Carter. This debate focused on foreign policy so naturally, it being the Cold War and all, each candidate faced several questions about U.S.-Soviet relations. The New York Times’ Max Frankel asked Ford about the 1975 Helsinki Agreement, a détente-era document that recognized Europe’s postwar borders while endorsing human rights and basic freedoms such as speech and travel. Ford’s response about the Soviets in Eastern Europe leaves Frankel doing a double take; he can’t believe what he’s just heard and he asks Ford to clarify. Had Ford at this point said something like, “What I mean, Mr. Frankel, is no matter the current political or military situation, the Soviet Union will never dominate the spirit and hopes of the people of Eastern Europe and someday that spirit will prevail over Soviet tanks and occupation, and the Helsinki Agreement, I think, will play a role in lifting that spirit and encouraging it,” Ford’s response would today be forgotten. But Ford didn’t seem to understand that he had made a mistake, that what he had meant to say was not what he had actually said.

Without Ford’s gaffe, what would we remember about the 1976 debates? We’d remember that they were the first presidential debates since the four Kennedy-Nixon debates in 1960, and that unlike the Kennedy-Nixon debates, which were televised from closed studios, the Ford-Carter debates were held before live audiences and set the template for the presidential debates that have followed. Beyond that fact, without Ford’s gaffe the most memorable moment would be the audio failure during the first debate that left Ford and Carter standing stiffly and silently at their respective podiums for 27 minutes while technicians worked to fix the problem.

Ford faced an uphill battle in 1976 because of his pardon of Richard Nixon and the general post-Watergate mood affecting the country. The economy was stumbling as badly as Chevy Chase’s caricature of Ford on “Saturday Night Live,” and Ford had been weakened by a right-wing primary fight with Reagan. It was Ford who challenged Carter to the debates because he was behind by double digits in the polls and figured he had nothing to lose. He made the right move; by election day the race was a coin toss. In the end, Carter won 50.1 percent of the popular vote and 297 electoral votes to Ford’s 240. Carter won Ohio by only 11,116 votes, Wisconsin by only 35,245 votes and Mississippi by only 14,463 votes. Swing a few thousand votes in Ohio and Wisconsin or Mississippi and Ford wins the election. Did Ford’s gaffe cost him those few thousand votes? Or did it mean anything, since the election closed significantly in the final weeks? Can it be argued that despite his gaffe Ford won the debates?

Similarly, did Gore’s sighs during his first debate with George W. Bush and his foolish attempt to intimidate Bush during the third debate by awkwardly invading Bush’s personal space cost him the 2000 election by turning off just enough voters to make a difference? Perhaps, though the votes Gore lost to Ralph Nader made a far greater difference.

Debates matter. They matter less than we think, or in different ways than we think. They matter somewhere at an election’s margins, which matter when elections are close. They matter in reinforcing perceptions. They matter at slightly stirring or dimming supporters’ enthusiasm. Or like just about everything associated with a presidential campaign debates matter not at all, since most of us have known all along whom we’re voting for. Whatever their effect, we watch. Because surely, someday, that Perry-like “oops” moment will come, and who doesn’t want to be there to witness it?

No structure here; just some quick, morning-after random reactions:

Last night’s presidential debate was predictable, as most presidential debates are. The most surprising thing about it was how bad Jim Lehrer was (more on that in a moment). He had no control and I’m not sure his questions even qualified as questions. They certainly didn’t challenge either candidate.

Give Mitt Romney the edge, though his performance was not the knock out, virtuoso performance some pundits have started calling it. And who knows how much it will matter. John Kerry soundly won his first debate with George W. Bush in 2004 and Ronald Reagan was so bad during his first debate with Walter Mondale in 1984 that questions about his age dominated the post-debate analysis. Last time I checked, neither Mondale or Kerry was elected president.

President Obama was flat. As he often is, he was too deliberate, too cautious, too pause-y, too lacking in humor.

As for Romney, one of these days I’ll put my finger on what it is about Romney’s voice that I find grating. This description isn’t quite it, but he speaks sort of spiccato — you know that bouncing bow sound violinists make. A narrow range of notes continuously cut short. Hyper and twitchy.

Anyway, the national media and punditry now has the Romney comeback narrative it’s been longing for. They’ll run with it until the next debate in a couple of weeks, especially if the September employment figures scheduled to be released tomorrow supplement the narrative. If the numbers are in Obama’s favor, then Romney’s debate victory may quickly lose any impact it has.

*

During the debate I thought Romney’s move to the middle on taxes, education and health care would leave him with a tea party headache this morning, but maybe his promise to fire Big Bird and the early fawning over his performance have obscured the return of moderate Mitt. At least for now.

*

Yes, it’s the economy, stupid, but last night’s debate on domestic issues ignored immigration reform, the environment, women’s health, abortion, Supreme Court appointments …

*

About Lehrer. You’d think that someone who has moderated about a dozen previous presidential debates would have done a better job, but one of the reasons Lehrer was there again in the moderator’s seat was he’s a non-threatening presence. He wasn’t going to ask questions with a high degree of difficulty. Don’t expect much more from Candy Crowley when she moderates the “town-hall” debate Oct. 16 or Bob Schieffer when he moderates the foreign policy debate Oct. 22.

Before the political parties wrested control of the debates from the League of Women Voters in 1988, debate questions came from a moderator and a panel of three or four newspaper, magazine or television journalists and columnists. The panel setup was abandoned in 1996. The town-hall format, first done in 1992, is better than the single-moderator format, in its limited way, but is a poor substitute for the news panel.

I’d like to see the news panel brought back, with national bloggers and cable news hosts such as Lawrence O’Donnell and Bill O’Reilly added to the mix. (Talk-show hosts would have to check their egos at the door, which might be too much to ask.) The odds of a return to the good old days of presidential debates are remote as long as the parties control the debates, but the single-moderator format has run its course.

Fifty years ago today, the first James Bond movie, “Dr. No.” premiered in London. The movie launched an enduring franchise and starred the man who’s still the best of all the Bonds, Sean Connery.

Also in England on Oct. 5, 1962, and more important, EMI’s Parlophone Records released “Love Me Do,” the first single* by the Beatles (pictured below in EMI’s Abbey Road studios on Sept. 4, 1962). The song spent 10 weeks on the British charts and peaked at No. 17. The band that would change pop music didn’t start with a bang. But start they did, and their next single, “Please Please Me,” released three months later on Jan. 11, 1963, sparked a worldwide phenomenon.

The Beatles began 1962 by auditioning for Decca Records in London on Jan. 1. Several other record labels had already rejected them so they and their manager, Brian Epstein, saw Decca as one of their last best hopes for a record deal. The Decca audition tapes have been widely bootlegged; five of the 15 songs performed during the audition were officially released on “Anthology 1” in 1995. In February, Decca producer Dick Rowe told Epstein, “Guitar groups are on their way out, Mr. Epstein.”** Decca rejected the Beatles and offered a contract to a group called Brian Poole and the Tremeloes. (Yeah, me neither.)

The hinges of history fascinate me. Had Decca signed the Beatles, at least two things today would be true.

The first is Ringo Starr almost certainly would be anonymous Richard Starkey of Liverpool, England. Ringo didn’t join the Beatles until August 1962 after George Martin, who had signed them to EMI’s Parlophone label in May, suggested they needed to replace Pete Best with a better drummer. And the best drummer in Liverpool at the time was Ringo Starr of Rory Storm and the Hurricanes.

The second is the Beatles would be different. How big would they have become, what songs would they have written and recorded without Martin’s guidance and EMI’s indulgence? They may be nothing more than a footnote, if that, in pop music history. They may be just as famous, but with a discography we can’t imagine - no “Rubber Soul,” no “Revolver,” no “Sgt. Pepper.” And if Decca had signed the Beatles - had signed John, Paul, George and Pete - would the label later have signed the Rolling Stones?

Few events happened in 1962 that were more important to today’s world than Decca’s rejection of the Beatles. That rejection led to Oct. 5, 1962, and the release of the first single by the band - John, Paul, George and Ringo - that would go on to conquer the British and American charts for the next eight years.

And the inhabitants of that other world, the one where Decca signs the Beatles, maybe today is the day they recognize the first single on Parlophone by Brian Poole and the Tremeloes.

*

* “Love Me Do” wasn’t the Beatles’ first appearance on record in England. They had backed Tony Sheridan on a version of “My Bonnie” that had been released as a single by Polydor in January 1962. It didn’t chart - well, not until after Beatlemania struck and it poked its way onto the British charts for a week in June 1963.

** Allegedly. Epstein was the source of the quote, and Rowe, who died in 1986, denied ever uttering it. To give the man some credit, Rowe did sign the Rolling Stones to Decca in 1963 … following an introduction by George Harrison. Obviously, there were no hard feelings and by then, of course, guitar groups were very much in.

The final debate between President Barack Obama and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney begins in a few hours, at 8 p.m. The focus is foreign policy. The moderator is CBS’s Bob Schieffer, who says he plans to structure tonight’s debate around these five topics: America’s role in the world; Afghanistan and Pakistan; Israel and Iran; the changing Middle East and the new face of terrorism; and the rise of China and tomorrow’s world.

Five years ago, Foreign Affairs magazine asked each of the candidates who had announced for the 2008 presidential race to submit an essay outlining their foreign policy thoughts and goals. Coincidentally, Romney and Obama’s essays were published in the same issue, July/August 2007, and it was interesting reading those essays from today’s perspective.

Romney titled his essay “Rising to a New Generation of Global Challenges.” He wrote, “We need new thinking on foreign policy and an overarching strategy that can unite the United States and its allies - not around a particular political camp or foreign policy school but around a shared understanding of how to meet a new generation of challenges.”

Romney built his essay around “four key pillars of action”: increase defense spending, committing to spending at least 4 percent of GDP on national defense; achieve energy independence; reorganize the nation’s international civilian agencies into regional theaters similar to the military’s regional commands; and reinforce alliances and pursue new ones.

Romney continues to call for increased defense spending, “at a floor of 4 percent of GDP,” as his campaign website phrases it, and in his Oct. 8 foreign policy speech at the Virginia Military Institute, Romney repeated his desire to invest in defense. He also echoed pillars three and four in his VMI speech, saying he’d “organize all assistance efforts in the greater Middle East under one official with responsibility and accountability to prioritize efforts and produce results” and talking about America’s commitment to supporting allies.

Energy independence tops the five-point plan Romney touts on the campaign trail so it remains a “pillar” of his overall policy agenda. Missing this time around, however, is strong, clear support for what he called in his 2007 essay an “energy revolution.” Five years ago, in addition to supporting more drilling for oil and gas, nuclear power “and a fuller exploitation of coal,” Romney included wind and solar energy in the mix and said he’d push for “our generation’s equivalent of the Manhattan Project or the mission to the moon … to create new, economical sources of clean energy and clean ways to use the sources we have now.” The focus now is on drilling, mining and approving the Keystone XL pipeline (which didn’t exist as an issue five years ago). Romney’s Manhattan Project for clean energy might as well be on the moon; that might be where it was last seen.

Obama’s essay was titled “Renewing American Leadership.” In his introduction, he wrote, “America cannot meet the threats of this century alone, and the world cannot meet them without America. We can neither retreat from the world nor try to bully it into submission. We must lead the world, by deed and by example.”

Obama touches on many subjects Romney largely glides by — containing the spread of nuclear weapons and material, for example, which Obama calls “the most urgent threat to the security of America and the world,” and confronting climate change, which partially shaped Obama’s energy policy. Although climate change should be part of any discussion about energy, and military planners and thinkers within the Pentagon consider it a looming major national security issue, it has not been mentioned in either of the first two presidential debates or in the vice presidential debate. It has vanished as a campaign issue.

In the last campaign, Iraq, which Obama called a “strategic blunder,” was a top foreign policy issue. It remains important, though if it’s mentioned at all tonight it’ll be within the context of the broader Middle East, or perhaps as part of a discussion about Iran or the future direction of Syria and Libya.

On Iran, Obama wrote five years ago: “Our diplomacy should aim to raise the cost for Iran of continuing its nuclear program by applying tougher sanctions and increasing pressure from its key trading partners.” That is the policy he has pursued, more or less.

On terrorism, Obama wrote that he would “stay on the offense everywhere from Djibouti to Kandahar.” There was no mention of the use of drones, but that has been a key weapon in Obama’s offensive against terrorism. There are troubling questions about the use of drones, from sovereignty violations to extrajudicial killings. Think any of them will be asked tonight?

Obama wrapped up his essay by writing, “Our global engagement cannot be defined by what we are against; it must be guided by a clear sense of what we stand for.” True enough. The question is whether he’s provided that clear sense, and that’s the question, on both foreign and domestic policy, voters will answer Nov. 6.

This year’s presidential debates are done, and ready to fade into history. What moments will be revisited in four years when news networks, magazines and newspapers recall debate highlights from years past to set up the 2016 presidential debates? Big Bird, binders full of women and, from last night’s debate, horses and bayonets - the big Internet memes from this year’s debates? Or, if Mitt Romney is elected Nov. 6, how his performance in the first debate three weeks ago - combined with President Obama’s somnambulant performance - contributed to his victory?

If there’s one thing to take away from the debates in their immediate aftermath it’s how far Romney moved to the center during the first debate on domestic issues and again last night on foreign policy. I don’t know how many times Romney said he agreed with Obama on this foreign policy issue or that, but it happened enough to make you think Romney was endorsing the president.

Obama appears to have prepared for a more belligerent Romney - on Libya, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, you name it - than the one who showed up last night. As a result, his responses sometimes seemed too fiery, too snarky in contrast to the calmly smiling Romney sitting across from him. Romney was less aggressive than in the first two debates, less hyper, less the stickler for rules (as they applied to Obama), less concerned about who was getting more response time. Obama might have been thinking, “What the … ?” But he had seen this campaign jujitsu three weeks ago in Denver; he adjusted. I don’t think sleepwalking was Obama’s main problem during the first debate; I think it was blindsided confusion, puzzled paralysis induced by a Mitt Romney who rarely had been spotted since leaving office as Massachusetts’ governor in January 2007. …

Onward. In two weeks, voters in eight or nine states will determine our president for the next four years. From those of us whose votes don’t matter as much as yours, we wish you well.

Last week a state district judge said cheerleaders at Kountze High School in East Texas could continue to put together biblically inspired banners for their school’s football games, at least for the rest of this season. A lawsuit challenging the banners is set for trial next summer. The outcome of that trial might prohibit the banners next year and beyond, but for now the Kountze Lions can still run through the cheerleaders’ big paper banners as they take the field.

In various news reports, the cheerleaders have said the idea to add Bible verses to their banners came to them while they were at summer cheer camp. They wanted to do something different, something more inspirational than the traditional “Pluck the Eagles” or “Whip the Warriors” or “Snap the Dragons.” They decided the Bible would be a great source for inspirational quotes and agreed to take turns picking each week’s verse.

I don’t know if there was any parental push behind the cheerleaders’ Bible banners, but surely someone supervising the girls knew this would generate controversy. When, over the past 50 or 60 years, has something involving God, the Bible and public schools not generated controversy?

Whether controversy is what a parent or the cheerleaders wanted, it’s what they inevitably got. An atheist group, the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation, objected to the banners; the school superintendent, on the advice of the district’s attorney, banned them; the town rallied with signs and banners of their own; T-shirts were printed; Gov. Rick Perry and Attorney General Greg Abbott reached out to grab their share of the attention; the courts intervened; a trial awaits.

The verses the cheerleaders have chosen thus far should be familiar to anyone who even vaguely remembers anything about their high school’s chapter of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes:

I can do all things through Christ which strengthens me. - Philippians 4:13

But thanks be to God which gives us victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. - 1 Corinthians 15:57

If God is for us, who can be against us? - Romans 8:31¹

And let us run with endurance the race God has set before us. - Hebrews 12:1²

The day after the cheerleaders were told they could keep their banners, the Kountze Lions played the undefeated and district-leading Newton Eagles. The banner for last Friday night’s game (shown below under construction) came from Luke 18:27: “And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.” Again inspirational and, possibly, a sly commentary on the controversy surrounding the banners.

The Lions entered their game against Newton with a 5-1 record. The Lions are not a perennial high school football power and are unused to winning records. They finished each of the past three seasons with only three wins and haven’t made the playoffs in 40 years.

But they started this season strong, going 4-0. Their first loss came Oct. 5 when the Woodville Eagles beat them 18-16. It was a heartbreaking loss, but the Lions bounced back Oct. 12 to beat the Warren Warriors 48-0.

Then came Newton, like a swarm of hornets before the Israelites. If anyone was thinking there was something to the banners, the game with Newton could only have raised doubts. Newton humbled the Lions 64-10 - declawed and tamed them, to use the language of traditional football banners.

Kountze is now 5-2. Tonight the Lions play the East Chambers Buccaneers. The Buccaneers also are 5-2. It’s a pivotal game for both teams.

If Kountze loses tonight - loses for the third time in four weeks - it might be time for the cheerleaders to go Old Testament on their banners to save the season and the Lions’ hopes of making the playoffs. Forget mining feel-good quotes from the New Testament; another loss and it’s time to bring it by calling on the God who would send bears to maul children for making fun of Elisha’s bald head (see 2 Kings 2:23-24). A few of the more mild possibilities:

I will send my fear before thee. - Exodus 23:27

The Lord shall make the pestilence cleave unto thee. - Deuteronomy 28:21

Mine eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity. - Ezekiel 9:10

Break them with a rod of iron; dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel. - Psalms 2:9

Go Kountze! Tonight, let East Chambers know that the righteous are indeed bold as a lion. Sink the Buccaneers!

*

¹Obvious answer: the other team.

²The Kountze cheerleaders have chosen verses that are a mix of translations from the King James Bible and other Bibles. The King James version of this quote is superior, as most King James versions are: “And let us run with patience the race that is set before us.”

The talker of the day is this story by the American-Statesman’s Claire Osborn about a woman named Kay Hill who was asked by poll workers in Williamson County to cover her T-shirt because it said “Vote the Bible.” Election workers at Taylor City Hall, where Hill went to vote early, thought her T-shirt violated the Texas Election Code, which prohibits some political and electioneering speech within 100 feet of a polling place.

I don’t know where Hill (pictured right) bought her T-shirt, but John Hagee, the senior pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio whose views of history and the divine plan are interesting to say the least, produced a three-part DVD series titled “Vote the Bible.” To promote the DVD, Hagee wrote, “We have rejected the Word of God as the moral compass for our country and we are racing toward a totalitarian government called Socialism. …

“Our current president refused to attend the National Day of Prayer, has attended church twice since being elected president, says he worships over his Blackberry and covered a plaque reflecting the name of God …

“America has lost its way!

“BUT YOU CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! In this forthcoming election in November, you, the all powerful voter can go to the voting booth and “VOTE THE BIBLE!” Vote for candidates at every level of government whose lives and voting records reflect the moral and spiritual principles found in the Word of God.”

So, what do you think? Given Hagee’s remarks, did Hill’s shirt violate the Texas Election Code?

What does it mean to “vote the Bible”? That we should elect candidates who support laws calling for the stoning of women who commit adultery? Of women who lie about their virginity? Of rebellious sons? That we should support politicians who call for the exile, maybe even the death, of uncircumcised men? The amputation of offending limbs? The prohibition of shrimp and pork?

Or does it mean we should favor policies that reinforce Jesus’ call to treat others as each of us would like to be treated? To vote for those who would pass policies that care for the least among us? Who would remind us to see a homeless person not as an annoyance or a threat but as a representation of Jesus, who stands before us naked and hungry and judges us by whether we clothe and feed him or spurn him?

And what should Bible voters make of 1 Peter 2:13-14? It says, Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

That seems a pretty powerful call to vote for incumbents. They are in office by God’s will.

So obey. And follow. The Bible tells us so.

Please join me tonight as I follow election developments, starting around 5:30. I’ll be watching the presidential election between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, of course, but also select national and statewide races as well as a handful of local races and the fate of Austin bond and City Charter propositions.

It takes 270 electoral votes to win the White House. Here are the states in play (all poll-closing times listed are Central Standard Time - or Austin time, if you prefer):

Virginia. Electoral votes: 13. Polls close at 6. Obama won Virginia in 2008, the first Democrat to do so since Lyndon Johnson in 1964. A repeat in 2012 and Obama could be set up for a good night.

Florida. Electoral votes: 29. Most polls close at 6; others in the Panhandle close at 7. Opinion polls point toward a Romney win.

New Hampshire. Electoral votes: 4. Some polls close at 6; others at 7. A small but important prize that could prove the difference between 267 electoral votes and a loss and victory with 271. Romney owns a home here, and he was governor of neighboring Massachusetts. This should be a Romney win, but Obama is favored.

North Carolina. Electoral votes: 15. Polls close at 6:30. Obama won North Carolina in 2008. The Democrats held their national convention here, thinking a repeat was possible. The thinking now appears to have been more wishful than probable.

Ohio. Electoral votes: 18. Polls close at 6:30. Obama can lose Virginia and Florida and still be in control of the electoral vote. Lose Ohio and the president’s re-election chances are in trouble.

Michigan. Electoral votes: 16. Most polls close at 7; others at 8. Obama appears comfortably ahead here but the state has popped up as a toss-up on the electoral map compiled by Real Clear Politics. Curious.

Pennsylvania. Electoral votes: 20. Polls close at 7. Like Michigan, a state Obama should win. And like Michigan, it has popped up as a toss-up on Real Clear Politics’ electoral map. Again, curious.

Colorado. Electoral votes: 9. Polls close at 8. Colorado could become the president’s last stand should he lose Ohio.

Minnesota. Electoral votes: 10. Polls close at 8. The Washington Post’s George Will says Romney will win Minnesota. The opinion polls say George Will doesn’t know what he’s talking about. But … there is a proposed amendment to ban gay marriage on the ballot. A series of similar amendments in a dozen states worked wonders for George W. Bush’s re-election in 2004; could Minnesota’s ballot initiative mean a Romney upset in 2012?

Wisconsin. Electoral votes: 10. Polls close at 8. Rep. Paul Ryan’s home state. Romney’s running mate has been a bit of a dud on the campaign trail; he may prove a dud carrying his home state for the Republican ticket, too.

Iowa. Electoral votes: 6. Polls close at 9. Iowa boosted Obama toward the White House in the 2008 Democratic caucuses. Will it boost him toward re-election?

Nevada. Electoral votes: 6. Polls close at 9. Nevada’s years as a toss-up state appear numbered as it slowly becomes more Democratic. A Romney win would be a surprise.

The New York Times’ Nate Silver is being hailed has a prognosticating hero following President Barack Obama’s re-election Tuesday. Silver’s political forecasts, based on complicated calculations and poll compilations put through a statistical wringer, consistently showed Obama winning Tuesday’s election by a comfortable Electoral College margin over Mitt Romney. His projections gave Obama anywhere from 290 electoral votes to 332, depending on the day’s computation, with his Election Day forecast settling on 313 electoral votes for Obama to 225 for Romney. The electoral count currently is 303-206 Obama, with Florida yet to be called. Assuming Obama wins Florida (he leads by 0.6 percent), then the final electoral vote count will be 332-206.

Silver (pictured right) also projected a popular vote win for Obama of 50.8 percent to 48.3 percent. Obama currently leads in the popular vote 50.4 percent to 48.1 percent.

(At least two other prognosticators who focused on numbers and statistical models earned praise Tuesday, and if Florida goes to Obama, they will have been even more precise than Silver: Josh Putnam, a professor of political science at Davidson College, forecast 332 electoral votes for Obama to 206 for Romney, as did Simon Jackman, a political science professor at Stanford.)

Silver’s work has been a necessary read since the 2008 election. His readers rallied to his defense and now are claiming vindication for him after several conservative pundits and Republican operatives attacked him in the weeks before Tuesday’s vote as a hack whose models were biased and inaccurate and based on phony polling. Conservatives’ views on climate change and evolution have long painted them as averse to science, but their attacks on Silver painted them as averse to math, too.

Conservatives saw Tuesday’s elections through data and electoral outcomes that were more imagined than real. The Washington Examiner’s Michael Barone confidently predicted Romney would win 315 electoral votes to Obama’s 223. Fox News’ Dick Morris saw a 325-213 Romney victory.

The Washington Post’s George Will, reinforcing his standing as one of America’s least accurate pundits (see this 2011 survey of pundits’ accuracy), predicted Romney would win Minnesota, and thus the presidency, because Minnesotans were voting on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, and the amendment would drive turnout for Romney. Someone forgot to remind Will that this isn’t 2004, when proposed amendments banning same-sex marriage in 11 states turned out the evangelical vote for George W. Bush. Minnesota voters defeated the proposed amendment, and Minnesota went for Obama, as everyone but Will thought it would.

Then there’s Karl Rove, whose American Crossroads super PAC raised $300 million this election cycle. Rove said Romney would win Ohio, Iowa, Virginia, Colorado, Florida and 285 electoral votes to Obama’s 253.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Probably wrong. And wrong.

The focus has been on Hispanic voters since President Obama’s re-election Tuesday. Hispanic support for Obama was overwhelming - 71 percent, compared with 27 percent for Mitt Romney, according to exit polls.

Hispanic voters are part of a broad coalition that slowly has come together to support Democratic candidates the past 20 years. The coalition includes women, blacks, Asians (who three elections ago leaned Republican but went for Obama 3 to 1), voters ages 18-44, postgraduate voters, urban voters and, increasingly, suburban voters. For years the while male, elderly and rural voters Republicans have relied on to win elections have been steadily shrinking relative to the rest of the electorate. But Republicans have struggled to adjust to America’s shifting demographics as formerly fringe elements of the party have become its mainstream and have opted to try to limit the number of voters rather than expand their own limited coalition. Perhaps this election taught them there are only so many votes they can block.

Democrats have won four of the last six presidential elections, and five of the last six presidential popular votes. A bad candidate can thwart demographic advantages, but unless Republicans commit themselves to “a period of reflection and recalibration,” as Texas Sen. John Cornyn phrased it after Obama’s victory, losses in presidential and Senate elections will become a trend that won’t be easily reversed.

*

Cornyn’s reflection and recalibration is one path available to Republicans. Another comes courtesy of Gov. Rick Perry: Treat losing as winning. “We must hold his and Congress’ feet to the fire to once-and-for-all cut spending, repeal Obamacare and withdraw federal encroachment into state decision-making and personal liberties,” Perry said after Obama’s re-election Tuesday.

*

Obama beat Romney by 3 million votes. He lost only two states that he won in 2008, Indiana and North Carolina, and only in Indiana did he lose by a wide margin.

Thanks to demographic changes, Nevada has become a Democratic state, and Virginia, North Carolina and Florida are on the verge. It’s only a matter of time before Texas becomes competitive for Democrats (assuming Democrats in Texas can ever get their act together).

Turnout was lower than four years ago: Obama received about 8.2 million fewer votes than in 2008, while Romney received about 1.8 million fewer votes than John McCain.

*

Rep. Paul Ryan did nothing to help Romney. He was a dud on the campaign trail, Romney backed away from his positions on the budget and entitlements, and his previous statements on rape and abortion linked him to Todd Akin and other extremist, out-of-touch Republican men.

And he failed to deliver his home state of Wisconsin - failed to even make it competitive. Obama won Wisconsin by seven percentage points, 53-46.

Then again, Romney failed to win his native state of Michigan and the three states in which he has a home: New Hampshire, Massachusetts and California.

*

Finally, here’s the basis of a trivia question for you. With Obama’s victory Tuesday, American voters have now re-elected three consecutive presidents: Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. That has happened only once before. In 1820, James Monroe won the second of his two terms, becoming the third of three straight two-term presidents. The first two? Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and James Madison (1809-1817).

Jefferson, Madison, Monroe … Clinton, Bush, Obama. Six presidents you can now mention in the same breath.

A couple of weeks ago I wrote about the controversy surrounding the Scripture-themed banners Kountze High School cheerleaders were putting together for their school’s football games. Whatever inspirational value the banners had had at the beginning of the season was fading, at least in terms of inspiring the Kountze Lions to victory. The team was on a losing streak. It was time, I suggested tongue in cheek, that the cheerleaders put aside the feel-good New Testament passages they had been quoting and turned instead to the fear and wrath of the Old Testament to spark their team and save its season.

The season ended Friday with another Kountze loss. After starting the season with four wins, the Lions lost five of their final six games to finish 5-5 overall, 2-5 in district play.

This summer, a state district judge will decide whether the cheerleaders can display their biblical banners next season. Even if the judge says they can, here’s a suggestion for Kountze’s cheerleaders, sincerely offered. For the season’s first game, make a banner quoting Matthew 6:6: “When you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen.” For the rest of the season, return to the traditional “Sink the Pirates” or “Tame the Tigers.” Your banners can be fun and full of lower-case spirit, but they’re meaningless. Sorry, but the Lions will win or lose based on their talent, heart and coaching. God cannot be credited on blamed either way. He is best kept with you, not on some tasteless display on a football field. Consider this season a valuable lesson learned.

I wrote a column for today’s American-Statesman about last week’s defeat of Proposition 15, the bond measure that would have provided $78.3 million for affordable housing. There were seven Austin bond propositions on the Nov. 6 ballot, plus Central Health’s property tax increase to help build a medical school. Proposition 15 was the only bond proposal Austin voters rejected.

Last summer, the Fordham Institute’s Michael Petrilli compiled a list of the nation’s ZIP codes with the largest growth in white population between the 2000 census and the 2010 census. East Austin’s 78702 was No. 2 on the list. The white share of the population in 78702, which is bounded by I-35, MLK, Airport Boulevard and Lady Bird Lake, increased 33 percent from 2000 to 2010, while the ZIP code’s overall population fell 5 percent. This change in the makeup of East Austin is not necessarily a sign of gentrification, which is a socioeconomic phenomenon, not a racial one, but we all know how much downtown and areas near downtown have changed the past decade, with mixed-use developments, new condos and apartments, and houses renovated and expanded. The development has increased housing prices and property taxes, making it difficult for low-income, working-class individuals and families to remain in their neighborhoods.

Affordable housing is an imperfect term that includes everything from helping seniors on fixed incomes remain in their homes to moving the homeless into transitional housing, but one of its goals is to mitigate gentrification’s effects by keeping rents and mortgages affordable for low-income individuals and families. And some of the best affordable housing developments in Austin seamlessly blend low-cost and market-priced housing. With Proposition 15’s defeat, it’s anyone’s guess how much of that work can continue.

Dear Reader, if only you knew how remarkably restrained I’ve been about one of my favorite subjects: The Beatles. I’ve written about them only once on this blog. You’re welcome.

Indulge me today, though, as I write a few words about George Harrison.

Harrison died almost 11 years ago, on Nov. 29, 2001. If he were alive today, the 69-year-old Harrison quite possibly would be in Austin this weekend. He was an aficionado of Formula One and attended numerous Grands Prix each year. He was familiar with many of the drivers, and was close friends with racing legend Jackie Stewart.

Harrison even wrote a song about F1 titled “Faster,” which, as he explained on the record sleeve, was “inspired by Jackie Stewart and Niki Lauda and dedicated to the entire F1 circus.” It appears on his 1979 “George Harrison” solo album. Stewart has a cameo as Harrison’s chauffeur in the song’s video.

You can find several interviews with Harrison at various Grands Prix on YouTube. Here’s one of Harrison at the 1986 (I think) Australian Grand Prix, with Stewart:

About Harrison, I could go on.

About F1 … did you know that George Harrison was a fan?

I wrote a column for Sunday’s American-Statesman about Ashley Amini’s fight to prevent the city from declaring a 1961 house she bought in June a historic landmark, but thought I’d add more details about the house and its architect here. Amini wants to tear down the house to build her own, but if the City Council declares the house a landmark, then she won’t be allowed to demolish it. Go here to read my colleague Sarah Coppola’s news story about the house and the city’s attempt to keep Amini from tearing it down.

And go here to read the Historic Landmark Commission’s application to have the house declared historic and to see several photos of the house.

Amini showed me the house last week and I’ve been by it three times. It has grown on me, but not to point where I think it’s such an outstanding example of midcentury modern design, as the landmark commission claims, that its loss justifies the city violating Amini’s property rights to declare it a historic landmark against her wishes. As I wrote in my column, another buyer with a great deal of patience and money could renovate the house into a midcentury modern gem, but that’s not what Amini wants to do and it’s her property now.

The house (pictured below) was designed in 1961 by Austin architect Leonard Lundgren for Albert Sellstrom, a University of Texas professor, now retired. The landmark commission’s application to have the house zoned historic calls the house “an excellent example of mid-century modern architecture, designed by Leonard Lundgren, a world-known Austin architect whose only residential designs are here in Austin.”

Steve Sadowsky, the city’s historic preservation officer, has called Lundgren an “extremely significant” architect. Landmark Commissioner Terri Myers said during the commission’s meeting to discuss the Sellstrom house that Lundgren “was of considerable importance and influence.”

I asked Amini if she’d show me the Sellstrom house. I found the unique details that intrigued landmark commissioners — the triangular designs around the bottom of the balcony railing, the arched, coke-bottle windows in the stone wall, the arched doorway framed by the same coke-bottle glass — to be contrary to the best of midcentury modern design, which largely shunned ornamentation.

The commission’s zoning change review sheet describes the condition of the house as “excellent” but that description applies only if you look at the house as still largely existing in its original state. I would guess that not much has been done to the house since it was built — maybe a few minor upgrades in the 1970s but that’s about it. In other words, the house needs work. The balcony that extends off the living room over the garage needs to be repaired, if not replaced. The triangular shapes in the balcony railing (are they meant to evoke longhorns?) are made of plywood and a few are warped.

Ronald Reagan introduced human props to the State of the Union in 1982 and though the practice began modestly with a single guest and with good intentions, it had, by the end of Reagan’s presidency, become perfunctory and clichéd. George H.W. Bush tempered the practice some, but Bill Clinton took it to new heights — or exploitative lows — and there it has remained.

President Barack Obama’s guest list for tonight’s State of the Union numbers 24, if I’ve counted correctly. Not every guest on the list will be singled out during tonight’s speech (the record for shout outs during a State of the Union address is seven, held by Clinton), but each guest’s presence puts a human face on the president’s legislative agenda.

Obama’s guest list can be divided into several major categories. Among them: gun violence, health care, immigration, changes within the military (gays in the military and women in combat), the importance of science and technology, and vocational education.

The guest list, as released late this morning by the White House, follows on the jump.

But first, this year marks the 100th anniversary of Woodrow Wilson’s trip to Capitol Hill to do something that hadn’t been done since John Adams last did it in 1800: Read a State of the Union address before a joint session of Congress.

Wilson’s 28-minute spoken message broke a tradition that Thomas Jefferson had begun in 1801 when he opted to fulfill his constitutional mandate by sending members of Congress a written State of the Union rather than delivering a speech. Wilson’s decision to give a State of the Union address, something only George Washington and Adams had done before him, began an evolutionary drift that, a century later, has saddled us with today’s “tiresome pageant,” as I called the State of the Union in a column published last year.

Obama’s State of the Union speeches have averaged 7,080 words and it’s taken him an average of 65 minutes to deliver them, according to the American Presidency Project at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Obama’s average puts him just behind Clinton (7,426 words, 75 minutes) on the list of long-winded presidents. Their spoken average, however, is far behind William Howard Taft’s 22,610-word written average. Taft, Wilson’s predecessor, was as bloated in words as he was in body.

Ted Cruz has been the subject of what by now are countless news stories, columns and blog entries since his upset of Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst in last year’s Republican primary for the U.S. Senate and his taking office Jan. 3. It should surprise no one that he has begun his Senate career aggressively, capturing widespread attention. But the amount of ink printed and the number of pixels posted shot up dramatically last week and over the weekend after Cruz made this evidence-challenged statement Feb. 12 as the Senate Armed Services Committee prepared to send former Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel’s nomination to be secretary of defense to the full Senate:

“We do not know, for example, if he received compensation for giving paid speeches at extreme or radical groups. It is at a minimum relevant to know if that $200,000 that he deposited in his bank account came directly from Saudi Arabia, came directly from North Korea.”

The statement is innuendo, plain and simple, and prompted several Democrats and other critics to compare Cruz to Joe McCarthy. A few Senate Republicans, including Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham, called on Cruz to take it down a notch or two.

The American-Statesman, which endorsed Cruz over Dewhurst, weighed in this morning with its own editorial on Texas’ new senator. A sample paragraph:

“We’re not surprised that Cruz has found the media spotlight. We expressed concern after his election that he seemed more interested in appearing on Sunday morning talk shows than in serving the people of Texas as a constructive legislator. We can’t say Cruz hasn’t been engaged thus far, but his engagement might soon set a Senate speed record for planting oneself on the margins.”

Most of what’s been written about Cruz the past several days is reacting and expanding upon information reported in three similar articles printed Feb. 14 and 15. First up was Politico’s Manu Raju with his Feb. 14 article, “Ted Cruz comes out swinging.” An excerpt:

“Cruz’s sharp-elbowed Senate style underscores the dilemma facing Republicans as they seek a way out of the political wilderness: Rising stars like Cruz, a tea party favorite, are winning elections and GOP primaries. But their no-compromise, firebrand styles could turn off voters eager to see the two parties start making deals.”

The New York Times followed with “Texas Senator Goes on Attack and Raises Bipartisan Hackles,” a piece by Jonathan Weisman first posted online Feb. 15. On the same day, The Washington Post published “Ted Cruz, making quite an entrance,” a reported column by Ruth Marcus:

“Behind the scenes, Cruz has rankled even Republican colleagues, who think he lectures too much at private party sessions — ‘pontificates’ is one word used — and listens too little, especially for a newbie.

“One Republican senator described Cruz to me as ‘Jim DeMint without the charm,’ referring to the rigidly conservative South Carolina Republican who left the Senate to head the Heritage Foundation — and who was not exactly renowned for being warm and fuzzy. Cruz is said to have a frosty relationship with his state’s senior senator, John Cornyn (R), dating to Cruz’s surprising decision, as Senate candidate, not to endorse his fellow Texan’s bid for party whip.”