Leslie Stahl interviewed Alexei Navalny when he was in Germany, having survived an attempt to kill him with a military-grade poison.
You can see why Putin was afraid of him: he was smart and charismatic, handsome and youthful. Left alone, he might have led an uprising against Putin’s dictatorship.
In October 2023, Daria Navalnaya gave a short TED talk about what she learned from her father Alexei Navalny.
She said, “I miss him every single day. I’m scared that my father won’t be able to come to my graduation ceremony or walk me down the aisle at my wedding. But if being my father’s daughter has taught me anything, it is to never succumb to fear and sadness.”
She was right. He won’t be there when she graduates from Stanford University or when she gets married.
If you listen to her 11-minute talk, you will perhaps understand why he believed he had to return to Moscow after he was hospitalized in Berlin and nearly died. He knew he would be arrested, but he couldn’t back down. He was not afraid.
I still wish he had stayed in the West and remained a thorn in Putin’s side. I wish he were alive to warn the world about the corrupt psychopath who controls Russia. But I don’t understand his heroism. I don’t have his courage.
But his daughter understands. His wife too, who spoke through her grief at the Munich Security Conference soon after learning of his death.
As Telegram exploded with the news of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny’s death, his wife, Yuliya Navalnaya was in Germany — about to attend the annual Munich Security Conference surrounded by world leaders and defense officials, and within view of countless television cameras.
Navalnaya has generally sought to avoid the spotlight, to shield her two children from the fallout of her husband’s political work and to deny his tormentors in the Kremlin, including President Vladimir Putin, the satisfaction of ever seeing her cry. But as she took to the stage and delivered a dramatic, surprise statement, grief and worry were etched across her swollen face, and her eyes were tearful and blotchy.
She said she was not certain if the reports of her husband’s death were true. But, her voice trembling with fury, she said: “I want Putin, his entourage, Putin’s friends and his government to know they will pay for what they have done to our country, to our family and my husband. And that day will come very soon.”
She noted that Navalny — who had spoken out forcefully against Russia’s war in Ukraine and called for reparations to be paid from Russia’s oil and gas revenue — would have wanted to be in Munich, were he in her place.
“He would be on this stage,” Navalnaya said, adding, “I want to call the world, everyone who is in this room, people around the world, to together defeat this evil. Defeat this horrible regime in Russia.”
Today is Alexei Navalny Day on this blog. I was deeply upset when I first heard about his death. I had hoped that he would somehow survive and replace Putin. He was charismatic, courageous and through all his travails, had a great sense of humor. He was handsome and had great energy. In other words, he was everything that Putin is not. Putin was never able to break him. He never stopped laughing at Putin. Even in prison, he cracked jokes. Putin had to get rid of him.
The idea that he went for a “walk” in a penal colony in the Arctic, in brutal weather, is laughable. He was in a prison, not a resort. Most of his time was spent in solitary confinement. Please read about him and watch the documentaries. Navalny was a hero and patriot in a time when heroes are rare.
He stood up to a brutal dictator and refused to be afraid. Instead, he laughed. The one thing that a vicious dictator can’t bear is to be laughed at. Putin hated him. Putin was jealous of Navalny. He had to die.
********************************
On September 22, 2022, The Washington Post published the following essay by Alexei Navalny. Navalny was the most prominent opponent of Putin. He died a few days ago in a remote prison in the Arctic. Putin’s agents tried to poison him in 2020, but he survived. He returned to Moscow, where he was immediately arrested and jailed. While he was in prison, Russian courts added more years of imprisonment to his sentence until it became clear that he would never be released. He was a hero and a patriot. Putin murdered him.
Navalny wrote about what Russia should be after Putin was gone.
Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny is serving a nine-year sentence in a maximum-security penal colony. This essay was conveyed to The Post by his legal team. [Navalny’s prison sentence was increased by another 19 years for “extremism” while he was in prison.]
Navalny wrote:
What does a desirable and realistic end to the criminal war unleashed by Vladimir Putin against Ukraine look like?
If we examine the primary things said by Western leaders on this score, the bottom line remains: Russia (Putin) must not win this war. Ukraine must remain an independent democratic state capable of defending itself.
This is correct, but it is a tactic. The strategy should be to ensure that Russia and its government naturally, without coercion, do not want to start wars and do not find them attractive. This is undoubtedly possible. Right now the urge for aggression is coming from a minority in Russian society.
In my opinion, the problem with the West’s current tactics lies not just in the vagueness of their aim, but in the fact that they ignore the question: What does Russia look like after the tactical goals have been achieved? Even if success is achieved, where is the guarantee that the world will not find itself confronting an even more aggressive regime, tormented by resentment and imperial ideas that have little to do with reality? With a sanctions-stricken but still big economy in a state of permanent military mobilization? And with nuclear weapons that guarantee impunity for all manner of international provocations and adventures?
It is easy to predict that even in the case of a painful military defeat, Putin will still declare that he lost not to Ukraine but to the “collective West and NATO,” whose aggression was unleashed to destroy Russia.
And then, resorting to his usual postmodern repertoire of national symbols — from icons to red flags, from Dostoevsky to ballet — he will vow to create an army so strong and weapons of such unprecedented power that the West will rue the day it defied us, and the honor of our great ancestors will be avenged.
And then we will see a fresh cycle of hybrid warfare and provocations, eventually escalating into new wars.
To avoid this, the issue of postwar Russia should become the central issue — and not just one element among others — of those who are striving for peace. No long-term goals can be achieved without a plan to ensure that the source of the problems stops creating them. Russia must cease to be an instigator of aggression and instability. That is possible, and that is what should be seen as a strategic victory in this war.
There are several important things happening to Russia that need to be understood:
First, jealousy of Ukraine and its possible successes is an innate feature of post-Soviet power in Russia; it was also characteristic of the first Russian president, Boris Yeltsin. But since the beginning of Putin’s rule, and especially after the Orange Revolution that began in 2004, hatred of Ukraine’s European choice, and the desire to turn it into a failed state, have become a lasting obsession not only for Putin but also for all politicians of his generation.
Control over Ukraine is the most important article of faith for all Russians with imperial views, from officials to ordinary people. In their opinion, Russia combined with a subordinate Ukraine amounts to a “reborn U.S.S.R. and empire.” Without Ukraine, in this view, Russia is just a country with no chance of world domination. Everything that Ukraine acquires is something taken away from Russia.
Second, the view of war not as a catastrophe but as an amazing means of solving all problems is not just a philosophy of Putin’s top brass, but a practice confirmed by life and evolution. Since the Second Chechen War, which made the little-known Putin the country’s most popular politician, through the war in Georgia, the annexation of Crimea, the war in Donbas and the war in Syria, the Russian elite over the past 23 years has learned rules that have never failed: War is not that expensive, it solves all domestic political problems, it raises public approval sky-high, it does not particularly harm the economy, and — most importantly — winners face no accountability. Sooner or later, one of the constantly changing Western leaders will come to us to negotiate. It does not matter what motives will lead him — the will of the voters or the desire to receive the Nobel Peace Prize — but if you show proper persistence and determination, the West will come to make peace.
Don’t forget that there are many in the United States, Britain and other Western countries in politics who have been defeated and lost ground due to their support for one war or another. In Russia, there is simply no such thing. Here, war is always about profit and success.
Third, therefore, the hopes that Putin’s replacement by another member of his elite will fundamentally change this view on war, and especially war over the “legacy of the U.S.S.R.,” is naive at the very least. The elites simply know from experience that war works — better than anything else.
Perhaps the best example here would be Dmitry Medvedev, the former president on whom the West pinned so many hopes. Today, this amusing Medvedev, who was once taken on a tour of Twitter’s headquarters, makes statements so aggressive that they look like a caricature of Putin’s.
Fourth, the good news is that the bloodthirsty obsession with Ukraine is not at all widespread outside the power elites, no matter what lies pro-government sociologists might tell.
The war raises Putin’s approval rating by super-mobilizing the imperially minded part of society. The news agenda is fully consumed by the war; internal problems recede into the background: “Hurray, we’re back in the game, we are great, they’re reckoning with us!” Yet the aggressive imperialists do not have absolute dominance. They do not make up a solid majority of voters, and even they still require a steady supply of propaganda to sustain their beliefs.
Otherwise Putin would not have needed to call the war a “special operation” and send those who use the word “war” to jail. (Not long ago, a member of a Moscow district council received seven years in prison for this.) He would not have been afraid to send conscripts to the war and would not have been compelled to look for soldiers in maximum-security prisons, as he is doing now. (Several people were “drafted to the front” directly from the penal colony where I am.)
Yes, propaganda and brainwashing have an effect. Yet we can say with certainty that the majority of residents of major cities such as Moscow and St. Petersburg, as well as young voters, are critical of the war and imperial hysteria. The horror of the suffering of Ukrainians and the brutal killing of innocents resonate in the souls of these voters.
Thus, we can state the following:
Share this articleNo subscription required to readShare
The war with Ukraine was started and waged, of course, by Putin, trying to solve his domestic political problems. But the real war party is the entire elite and the system of power itself, which is an endlessly self-reproducing Russian authoritarianism of the imperial kind. External aggression in any form, from diplomatic rhetoric to outright warfare, is its preferred mode of operation, and Ukraine is its preferred target. This self-generated imperial authoritarianism is the real curse of Russia and the cause of all its troubles. We cannot get rid of it, despite the opportunities regularly provided by history.
Russia had its last chance of this kind after the end of the U.S.S.R., but both the democratic public inside the country and Western leaders at the time made the monstrous mistake of agreeing to the model — proposed by Boris Yeltsin’s team — of a presidential republic with enormous powers for the leader. Giving plenty of power to a good guy seemed logical at the time.
Yet the inevitable soon happened: The good guy went bad. To begin with, he started a war (the Chechen war) himself, and then, without normal elections and fair procedures, he handed over power to the cynical and corrupt Soviet imperialists led by Putin. They have caused several wars and countless international provocations, and are now tormenting a neighboring nation, committing horrible crimes for which neither many generations of Ukrainians nor our own children will forgive us.
In the 31 years since the collapse of the U.S.S.R., we have witnessed a clear pattern: The countries that chose the parliamentary republic model (the Baltic states) are thriving and have successfully joined Europe. Those that chose the presidential-parliamentary model (Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia) have faced persistent instability and made little progress. Those that chose strong presidential power (Russia, Belarus and the Central Asian republics) have succumbed to rigid authoritarianism, most of them permanently engaged in military conflicts with their neighbors, daydreaming about their own little empires.
In short, strategic victory means bringing Russia back to this key historical juncture and letting the Russian people make the right choice.
The future model for Russia is not “strong power” and a “firm hand,” but harmony, agreement and consideration of the interests of the whole society. Russia needs a parliamentary republic. That is the only way to stop the endless cycle of imperial authoritarianism.
One may argue that a parliamentary republic is not a panacea. Who, after all, is to prevent Putin or his successor from winning elections and gaining full control over the parliament?
Of course, even a parliamentary republic does not offer 100 percent guarantees. It could well be that we are witnessing the transition to the authoritarianism of parliamentary India. After the usurpation of power, parliamentary Turkey has been transformed into a presidential one. The core of Putin’s European fan club is paradoxically in parliamentary Hungary.
And the very notion of a “parliamentary republic” is too broad.
Yet I believe this cure offers us crucial advantages: a radical reduction of power in the hands of one person, the formation of a government by a parliamentary majority, an independent judiciary system, a significant increase in the powers of local authorities. Such institutions have never existed in Russia, and we are in desperate need of them.
As for the possible total control of parliament by Putin’s party, the answer is simple: Once the real opposition is allowed to vote, it will be impossible. A large faction? Yes. A coalition majority? Maybe. Total control? Definitely not. Too many people in Russia are interested in normal life now, not in the phantom of territorial gains. And there are more such people every year. They just don’t have anyone to vote for now.
Certainly, changing Putin’s regime in the country and choosing the path of development are not matters for the West, but jobs for the citizens of Russia. Nevertheless, the West, which has imposed sanctions both on Russia as a state as well as on some of its elites, should make its strategic vision of Russia as a parliamentary democracy as clear as possible. By no means should we repeat the mistake of the West’s cynical approach in the 1990s, when the post-Soviet elite was effectively told: “You do what you want there; just watch your nuclear weapons and supply us with oil and gas.” Indeed, even now we hear cynical voices saying similar things: “Let them just pull back the troops and do what they want from there. The war is over, the mission of the West is accomplished.” That mission was already “accomplished” with Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, and the result is a full-fledged war in Europe in 2022.
This is a simple, honest and fair approach: The Russian people are of course free to choose their own path of development. But Western countries are free to choose the format of their relations with Russia, to lift or not to lift sanctions, and to define the criteria for such decisions. The Russian people and the Russian elite do not need to be forced. They need a clear signal and an explanation of why such a choice is better. Crucially, parliamentary democracy is also a rational and desirable choice for many of the political factions around Putin. It gives them an opportunity to maintain influence and fight for power while ensuring that they are not destroyed by a more aggressive group.
War is a relentless stream of crucial, urgent decisions influenced by constantly shifting factors. Therefore, while I commend European leaders for their ongoing success in supporting Ukraine, I urge them not to lose sight of the fundamental causes of war. The threat to peace and stability in Europe is aggressive imperial authoritarianism, endlessly inflicted by Russia upon itself. Postwar Russia, like post-Putin Russia, will be doomed to become belligerent and Putinist again. This is inevitable as long as the current form of the country’s development is maintained. Only a parliamentary republic can prevent this. It is the first step toward transforming Russia into a good neighbor that helps to solve problems rather than create them.
World leaders spoke out about the death of Alexei Navalny, who was obviously murdered on the order of Putin.
One prominent figure said nothing: Donald Trump. Trump has boasted about his friendship with Putin.
Donald Trump, the frontrunner for the GOP presidential nomination, was silent following news of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny’s death on Friday. Instead, his campaign referred a reporter to a statement that didn’t reference Navalny or Russian President Vladimir Putin.
“In just three and a half years under Crooked Joe Biden, the World has experienced Misery, Destruction, and Death. America is no longer respected because we have an incompetent president who is weak and doesn’t understand what the World is thinking. I am the only one who can bring Peace, Prosperity, and Stability like I did during my first term. America will be respected and feared (if necessary!) again,” Trump said in the vague statement posted to Truth Social.
Nikki Haley blasted Trump.
“Putin murdered his political opponent and Trump hasn’t said a word after he said he would encourage Putin to invade our allies. He has, however, posted 20+ times on social media about his legal drama and fake polls,” Haley said on X, formerly known as Twitter, several hours after Navalny’s death was first reported.
“Putin did this. The same Putin who Donald Trump praises and defends,” Haley wrote in a social media post reacting to the news earlier Friday morning.
“The same Trump who said: ‘In all fairness to Putin, you’re saying he killed people. I haven’t seen that,’” Haley continued, referring to comments Trump made in 2015, when he pushed back against the notion that Putin had killed journalists. Trump also praised Putin’s leadership, describing him as “a strong leader.”
Be sure to watch the CNN documentary NAVALNY tonight at 9 pm EST and midnight. It won an Academy Award as Best Documentary of 2023.
Well, that was fast!!
At 9 a.m. I posted about a New York Times article published yesterday revealing that Trump wanted a 16-week ban on abortions. Since 93% of abortions are performed by the 13th week of abortion, that would essentially render the Dobbs decision ineffective.
But Trump’s anti-abortion pals got wind of his intention and let it be known that they will play every trick in the book—including reviving an 1873 law—to make abortion illegal everywhere.
The New York Times reports today:
Allies of former President Donald J. Trump and officials who served in his administration are planning ways to restrict abortion rights if he returns to power that would go far beyond proposals for a national ban or the laws enacted in conservative states across the country.
Behind the scenes, specific anti-abortion plans being proposed by Mr. Trump’s allies are sweeping and legally sophisticated. Some of their proposals would rely on enforcing the Comstock Act, a long-dormant law from 1873, to criminalize the shipping of any materials used in an abortion — including abortion pills, which account for the majority of abortions in America.
“We don’t need a federal ban when we have Comstock on the books,” said Jonathan F. Mitchell, the legal force behind a 2021 Texas law that found a way to effectively ban abortion in the state before Roe v. Wade was overturned. “There’s a smorgasbord of options.”
Mr. Mitchell, who represented Mr. Trump in arguments before the Supreme Court over whether the former president could appear on the ballot in Colorado, indicated that anti-abortion strategists had purposefully been quiet about their more advanced plans, given the political liability the issue has become for Republicans.
“I hope he doesn’t know about the existence of Comstock, because I just don’t want him to shoot off his mouth,” Mr. Mitchell said of Mr. Trump. “I think the pro-life groups should keep their mouths shut as much as possible until the election….”
In policy documents, private conversations and interviews, the plans described by former Trump administration officials, allies and supporters propose circumventing Congress and leveraging the regulatory powers of federal institutions, including the Department of Health and Human Services, the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Justice and the National Institutes of Health.
The effect would be to create a second Trump administration that would attack abortion rights and abortion access from a variety of angles and could be stopped only by courts that the first Trump administration had already stacked with conservative judges.
“He had the most pro-life administration in history and adopted the most pro-life policies of any administration in history,” said Roger Severino, a leader of anti-abortion efforts in Health and Human Services during the Trump administration. “That track record is the best evidence, I think, you could have of what a second term might look like if Trump wins.”
In what appears to be a transparent effort to protect Confederate monuments, the Florida legislature is considering a bill that would prevent localities from removing monuments that have been in place for at least 25 years.
A proposal that would prevent the removal of historic state monuments, like Confederate statues, has been making its way through the Florida House and Senate.
Senate Bill 1122 would punish local governments that try to take down historic monuments located on public property and would give someone the right to sue if one is removed. A similar bill, House Bill 395, is moving through Tallahassee as well.
On Tuesday, the Senate Community Affairs Committee voted favorably on SB 1122, but not without contention.
Many of those who spoke in opposition of the legislation at Tuesday’s meeting viewed the bill as a tactic to prevent the removal of Confederate monuments and also opposed the fact that the bill would take power away from local governments. Those who spoke in favor of the bill said they viewed it as a way to protect history — one commentator specifically said he was in favor of the bill as he saw it as a way to protect “white society.”
Count on the Florida legislature to protect the monuments to white history.
The New York Times reported that Donald Trump has been telling friends privately that he supports a national ban on abortion at 16 weeks, with exceptions for rape, incest or the life of the mother.
A 16-week national ban would eliminate the authority of some 30 states that do not have abortion bans, but it would cancel the highly restrictive laws of states like Florida that have enacted a six-week ban, that is, before women know they are pregnant, and Texas, where abortion has been outlawed.
Very clever! A 16-week ban would restore abortions wherever it has been prohibited.
A 16-week ban would not end many abortions: nearly 94 percent of abortions happen before 13 weeks in pregnancy, according to data collected by the Centers for Disease Control. Nor is such a ban grounded in medical research. Even 15 weeks falls before the point when significant screens take place in a pregnancy to examine the fetus for rare — but potentially fatal — conditions. Instead, it has become a position that some Republicans, based on polling, believe will be the most politically palatable to voters.
Trump makes clear that this is a political calculation. It would please many in red states who support abortion rights, and he could still say he was against abortion.
For most of his life, Trump has been pro-abortion but turned against it when he realized he needed the support of Catholics and Evangelicals.
He has boasted to his right flank that he delivered what he promised: a Supreme Court that overturned Roe v. Wade.
But he recognizes that voters are angry about the loss of abortion rights, and Republicans are losing elections because of abortion restrictions.
So now, at his transactional best, he proposes a 16-week ban that enables almost every abortion to proceed at the same rate as before the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe. He would openly revive abortion, bypassing the Supreme Court.
I have this visual image of Trump looking at his anti-abortion followers and cynically smirking, “Fooled you! Hahaha.”
Several readers told me they were unable to access my conversation with Todd Scholl of the South Carolina Center for Educatot Wellness and Learning.
We talked about attacks on public schools, standardized testing, and privatization.
Todd sent these links:
The video can be found on the CEWL website at www.cewl.us. A direct link to the video can be found at https://youtu.be/Zm0Vi3S3RLM.
Thom Hartmann says the Supreme Court is wimping out in the Colorado case. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was written to protect us from fascist thugs. And Florida is passing legislation to teach kindergartners about the dangers of Communism. I’m all in favor of teaching about the dangers of both Communism and fascism (Florida left out that danger). Both Stalin and Hitler were deadly enemies of freedom and democracy. But leave the kindergartners alone. Let them play.
He wrote:
— The Supreme Court has wimped out on Trump. The 14th Amendment was passed to prevent the very scenario we’re now facing: a fascist insurrectionist seeking political office to end American democracy and replace it with a strongman authoritarian like the men who ran the Confederacy. One of the most absurd moments was when Kagan and Roberts both suggested that “one state shouldn’t determine the outcome of a presidential election,” as if they’d never, ever even heard of Bush v Gorewhen Jeb Bush and Kathrine Harris threw out over 30,000 “spoiled” ballots where people in Black communities with defective voting machines both punched the “Al Gore” hole and wrote “Al Gore” on the ballot. Florida, and Florida alone, determined the outcome of the 2000 election. One state. Bottom line: this is now up to us. Nobody is coming to the rescue of American democracy. We must turn out the vote this fall in overwhelming numbers…
— Trump steals classified documents, the ones about US spies in Russia are missing (and our spies are dying), and Biden wrote a letter to Obama when he was VP that he kept, and now the media and this idiot special counsel and lifelong Republican hack Robert Hur are doing their best to conflate the two. That pretty much sums it up. Like the Dean Scream and Comey’s press conference to complain about Hillary’s emails, it looks like our mainstream press and the GOP are working together to get a Republican back into the White House. Again, we have to turn out this fall in overwhelming numbers…
— Pink triangles come to Kansas? Republicans in the Kansas legislature are pushing a new law that would require trans people to be identified as such on their birth certificates. Never forget that the first group Hitler went after — literally weeks after he took power — were trans people. When fascists want a minority group to beat up on for political gain, this is the smallest minority out there, smaller than any racial or religious group, and thus the most defenseless. These Republicans in Kansas are bullies and thugs.
— Smartmatic is suing OAN, and they busted the CEO! Voting machine manufacturer Smartmatic is in the discovery phase of their multiple lawsuits against rightwing hate outlets for defamation, and, boy howdy, they have pulled in a big fish. It appears from press reports that the CEO of One America News, the rightwing TV channel, allegedly obtained hacked passwords to Smartmatic machines and passed them along to pillow guy Mike Lindell and Trump loony lawyer Sidney Powell. Get out the popcorn: this is going to get interesting (and expensive!)…
— Crazy Alert! Republicans want Florida schools to teach kindergartners all about the “threat of communism.” Soon, five year olds in Florida may be watching newsreels of mass murders in Stalinist Russia and learning how Social Security and Medicare are “socialism.” These are the same idiots who keep railing against “liberal elites indoctrinating our kids.” Right…
The Houston Chronicle reported yesterday that Republicans who voted to oppose Governor Greg Abbott’s voucher program are being bombarded with fake ads, distorting their support for their local public schools. Governor Abbott received a gift of $6 million from Pennsylvania billionaire Jeff Yass to advance vouchers, as well as more from billionaire oil tycoons Wilks, Dunn, and Farris. Clearly he’s putting this bonanza into a campaign of lies. Abbott says that polls show that Texans want vouchers. If that were true (it’s not), Abbott should run honest ads saying, “Don’t vote for this guy because he opposes vouchers.”
During the regular session and four special sessions, Abbott held public school funding and teacher pay hostage. He said he would not give a penny to public schools or their teachers unless he got vouchers. Twenty-one Republicans opposed vouchers, so now Abbott accuses them of sabotaging the funding of public schools and teacher pay.
Abbott won’t run honest ads because he knows that Texans don’t want to spend their taxes to pay for religious schools and to subsidize the tuition of rich kids in private schools. His ads lie because the Governor knows vouchers are unpopular. They have been voted down in every state that has put them on the ballot.
Reporter Jason Scherer writes:
The ad opens with a dramatic message: “Steve Allison failed our teachers and kids.”
It says the San Antonio Republican stopped a bill in the Texas House last year that would have raised teacher pay, ended STAAR testing and poured more than $200 million into public schools in his district. “You deserve better,” the narrator concludes.
RELATED: Who’s behind the campaign mailers flooding GOP districts? Most lead back to megadonor oil tycoons
What the ad, from the Family Empowerment Coalition PAC, fails to mention is that Allison supported all of those measures. Gov. Greg Abbott refused to sign a package that included them into law unless it included private school vouchers, which Allison opposed.
The PAC is using similarly misleading online ads to target at least a dozen Republican state House members who voted to strip the voucher proposalfrom a $7 billion education funding bill in November. The PAC is one of several groups that have worked in conjunction with Abbott ahead of the March primaries to unseat GOP lawmakers who rejected the governor’s push last year to give parents taxpayer dollars to send their kids to private schools.
Twenty-one House Republicans joined with every Democrat in the chamber to strike vouchers from the bill. The GOP author then withdrew the entire package, citing Abbott’s threat to veto any education funding that did not come with vouchers.
Allison, a former Alamo Heights ISD board president who has long pushed for Texas to bolster school funding, said the ad’s claims are a “flat-out falsehood.”
BACKGROUND: Texas House rejects school voucher proposal, dealing blow to Abbott, private school advocates
“There was absolutely no reason in the world why the rest of that bill couldn’t have gone forward — and I think we would have passed it,” Allison said, adding that he supported the rest of the $7 billion measure. If anything, he argued, it did not go far enough to boost education funding.
Leo Linbeck, a leader and co-founder of the Family Empowerment Coalition PAC, has contended that “anti-voucher extremists” were responsible for the bill’s demise, arguing that they received major concessions and were only asked to approve a limited voucher program “that would have served 1% of kids, all poor.”
“(W)hen you strip out a major part of a compromise bill, it dies,” Linbeck wrote on X last month.
Linbeck did not immediately respond to a request for comment Wednesday.
The ads are just one example of how Abbott and the cadre of pro-voucher political groups have made only sparing reference to vouchers, instead focusing on teacher pay raises, border security and abortion in their political ads.
The Family Empowerment Coalition has been among the most active players in the state House primaries, spending some $762,000 through late January to attack anti-voucher Republicans and support their primary challengers. Other founding members include Doug Deason, a prominent Dallas GOP donor, and former state Sen. Eddie Lucio Jr., a Democrat who supported vouchers in the Legislature.
Beyond attacks on school funding, they have also accused GOP members of being “weak on the border” and promoted their challengers as stronger advocates for border security — a topic that carries far more weight among GOP primary voters than vouchers, according to a recent statewide poll.
State Rep. Ernest Bailes, a Shepherd Republican who opposes school vouchers, is another of the group’s targets. His main rival is Janis Holt, a school board trustee and owner of an air purification company who also challenged Bailes in 2022.
More than three-quarters of Holt’s campaign funding has come from the Family Empowerment Coalition PAC and Abbott, who endorsed her in January.
“Governor Abbott needs an ally to fight with him for a secure border,” one of the Family Empowerment Coalition PAC’s ads reads. “That’s why he has endorsed Janis Holt for HD 18.”
The PAC ran another ad accusing Allison of bragging “that he helped close the border, even though he didn’t. That’s why Gov. Abbott didn’t endorse him.”
But the ad leaves out that every Republican in the Texas House, including Allison and Bailes, supported a far-reaching new law that empowers state officials to essentially deport people who are suspected of crossing the border illegally. They also backed a contentious bill that establishes stiffer penalties for human smuggling and approved more than $6.5 billion for border security over the next two years, including $1.5 billion to continue building a wall along Texas’ southern border.
Allison called the border-focused ads “outrageous,” pointing to his votes for the slate of GOP immigration bills.
“I’d like to see them point to one border bill that I didn’t vote for, or show anything that I’ve ever done except being 100% behind border security,” Allison said. “I’ve been down there three times. I have voted for every appropriation — I was on (the House) Appropriations (Committee) — and voted for every request the governor has made.”
Abbott is running a digital ad promoting Allison’s main challenger, attorney and former Bexar County district attorney GOP nominee Marc LaHood, as an ally in his fight to “stop the flow of illegal immigrants, crime and drugs into Texas.” The governor has run the same version of the ad for several other candidates running to unseat anti-voucher Republicans.
The governor also invited 20 Republican House members to the border last week for a press conference where he touted their bona fides on border legislation. Abbott did not invite any voucher opponents to the press conference.
Diane Ravitch's blog 