When Should Aging Politicians Retire?

Texas Congressman Ralph Moody Hall was born a few weeks after Warren G. Harding died in office, Vice President Calvin Coolidge had been sworn in and the Republican Teapot Dome bribery scandal was shaking confidence in the Republican Party. He was ten when FDR was first elected and an adult when there was an President in office not named Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Other than John Dingell (age 87), Hall is the last living congressman who fought in World War II. An attorney, he was elected to the Texas state Senate in 1962 and then to Congress in 1980. He was an ultra-conservative Democrat, helped found the Blue Dogs, voted to impeach President Clinton, supported Bush over Gore and finally switched to the GOP in 2004. He's now not just the oldest Member of Congress, he's the oldest person to ever serve in Congress. Last June, smelling food and hearing the familiar refrain of I Will Survive, a confused Hall wandered into a Gay Victory Fund celebration in the Rayburn Office Building. Although he is a cosponsor of all kinds of homophobic GOP legislation, he was welcomed warmly by his LGBT colleagues and given "refreshments." Later when Roll Call mentioned that the doddering Texan had "let his hair down," a snappy staffer wrote a quote for him: "I would just say that while I do have a good head of hair for a 90-year-old, I do not have the quantity of hair, nor the inclination, to let it down."

Nor does he have the inclination to retire from Congress, despite 5 primary challengers, including one from well-funded ex-US Attorney John Ratcliffe. Hall's age is the key issue in the primary and Hall is begging voters to give him just one more term.

“There’s going to be a transition that’s inevitable,” Ratcliffe said. “I provide a good alternative for voters to consider right now.”

Ratcliffe, 48, a partner at a law firm headed by former Attorney General John Ashcroft, embraces Hall. In 2005, he donated $2,000 to Hall’s campaign. And their positions differ little-- both consider themselves conservatives but not tea party representatives.

Ratcliffe sees himself more as Hall’s successor than opponent, and many Republicans in Rockwall would agree. The question is whether voters will unseat Hall after more than three decades in Congress.

“He’s like everyone’s grandpa or great-grandpa,” said Matt Mackowiak, a Republican consultant in Texas. “It’s pretty hard for a lot of people to feel like he’s being ‘fired.’” … Ratcliffe said that rather than asking those loyal to the 17-term congressman to choose, he hopes to seek out new, younger voters. He plans to make social media a key part of his campaign, a contrast to Hall’s habit of sending handwritten notes.

…Matthew Orwig, who preceded Ratcliffe as U.S. attorney, said the race will be one of the energetic vs. the sentimental. Age is a factor for voters, he said.

“He is the oldest member ever to serve in Congress,” Orwig said of Hall. “Of course people are talking about his age.”

…But both candidates have vowed to say nothing negative against each other. Ratcliffe called Hall before he filed to tell him he was running. The incumbent said he told Ratcliffe he wished he wouldn’t but didn’t try to talk him out of it.

“He’s a friend of mine and a strong supporter,” Hall said. “I think he got tired of waiting.”

Hall skydives. And there's an unspoken conspiracy in Congress and in the media to make believe he isn't senile and that he can still function. An aide told the media “He’s a dynamo." The media reprinted it. Hall's office said he would swim the 21-mile English Channel-- but added it would take too long since he would have to swim one mile a day. “I may swim down to Cuba,” he said. “I’d be swimming downhill.” The media printed it. No one prints that he's not up to the job any longer. Hall is a devout non-believer in Science and Boehner and Cantor had a little joke when they made him chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee. Laughs over, he was gently pushed aside by a more lucid-- and more venal-- Texas colleague, Lamar Smith and now has the non-position position of "Chairman Emeritus."

Another member of the Science Committee is middling Democratic backbencher Eric Swalwell, who successfully primaried Pete Stark in 2012, ending the illustrious career of a Bay Area legislator who is a decade younger than Hall, but who was in Congress for nearly a decade when Hall first arrived. Ironically, Stark grew up as a Republican and switched parties because of his opposition to the Vietnam War. He beat a fellow Democrat, a man in his eighties in a 1972 primary, claiming his opponent had been in Congress too long. Swalwell used the same argument to defeat him 4 decades later and went after Stark a lot less genteelly than Hall's opponents are going after him. Currently, we have a similar situation just to the south of Stark's old district where a wealthy political opportunist, Ro Khanna, smells blood in the water and is relentlessly attacking 72 year old Mike Honda. Hall and Stark may well have been losing their facilities; Honda isn't. And 72 isn't necessarily an age when people should be pushed aside.

Last week, a fully lucid George Miller, age 68, announced his own retirement. He is one of labor's most avid and effective advocates and the hammer behind Nancy Pelosi's leadership. (His announcement has led to plenty of speculation that the 73 year old Pelosi will also be retiring.) One of Congress' best Members, Miller says he felt 40 years was enough. Perhaps he remembers how Pete Stark unceremoniously defeated the other George Miller in 1972, based on him having overstayed his time in Congress. Or maybe not. This George Miller was reelected in 2012 with 70% of the vote-- 2% better than Obama did in his East Bay district. "I was never," he told journalists at his announcement, "in awe of the 'indispensable man theory.' I tried that once on my high school football coach. And I sat on the bench for most of the year."

Within days, 75 year old Buck McKeon, as big a detriment to honest and effective governance as Miller was a boon, also announced his retirement. Good riddance! Earlier, a very ill, 82 year old Howard Coble announced his long-anticipated retirement, as did 74 year old Frank Wolf. When the longest-serving Republican in Congress, Bill Young announced he was retiring last October, he was 82 years old and died within a few days. Today, the oldest Members of the House are:

• Ralph Hall (R-TX), 90
• John Dingell (D-MI), 87
• John Conyers (D-MI), 84
• Louise Salughter (D-NY), 84
• Charlie Rangel (D-NY), 83
• Sam Johnson (R-TX), 83
• Howard Coble (R-NC), 82- retiring
• Sandy Levin (D-MI), 82
• Don Young (R-AK), 80
• Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), 78
• Bill Pascrell (D-NJ), 77
• Alcee Hastings (R-FL), 77
• Grace Napolitano (D-CA), 77
• Jim McDermott (D-WA), 77
• Lois Capps (D-CA), 76
• Hal Rogers (R-KY), 76
• Buck McKeon (R-CA), 75- retiring
• Maxine Wayers (D-CA), 75
• Steny Hoyer (D-MD), 74
• Frank Wolf (R-VA), 74- retiring
• Joe Pitts (R-PA), 74
• Henry Waxman (R-CA), 74
• John Lewis (D-GA), 74
• Tom Petri (R-WI), 73
• Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), 73
• David Price (D-NC), 73
• Jim Clyburn (D-SC), 73
• Rubén Hinojosa (D-TX), 73

The entire Democratic leadership is among the most elderly. Boehner just celebrated his 64th birthday, while Cantor is 50 and McCarthy is just about to turn 49.

There are only 7 Members under 35, Patrick Murphy (D-FL), 30, Aaron Schock (R-IL), 32, Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), 32, Eric Swalwell (D-CA), 33, Joe Kennedy (D-MA), 33), Justin Amash (R-MI), 33 and Jason Smith (R-MO), 33.

So why am I sharing all this congressional demographic information? Let's go back to George Miller for a moment. The earlier George Miller, in an adjacent district, was defeated in an ugly primary when he was 83 by Pete Stark, who was then defeated in an ugly primary 40 years later when he was 81. The current George Miller, decided he'd served enough years in Congress and announced his retirement at age 68, still in firm control of his facilities. Is it possible he felt he had given enough? I know it's possible.

I was still in my 50s when I retired as president of Reprise Records, making an incredible salary and still getting a great deal of satisfaction out of my work, despite some very unpleasant changes in the business of the Music Business. I had no need to buy a private jet or homes in Europe or leave my heirs vast fortunes that would spoil their lives. I had other plans-- giving back to society that had been so generous to me and enjoying life more and stressing about work less. And I felt that it was a positive example to make room for younger people to climb the career ladder below me. The music business-- like the politics business-- needs a mix of old people and young people in decision-making positions. The music business was even more unbalanced in favor of very old people than Congress is. There were peers of mine who didn't "believe" in computers… no, really. One gentleman not quite as old as Ralph Hall, told me, when I suggested he start using a computer, that he had a secretary to do his typing.

When George Miller announced his retirement, an e-mail list I take part in began a virtual wake. There was rending of garments and tearing of hair… an awful lot of shrieking and ululation. When I tried explaining the normal cycle of things, I was accused of not understanding the greatness of George Miller. Yeah, right.

Social Media Can Help Old People Stave Off Senility

Although it appears to not be working out for Chuck Grassley (R-IA), a new study published last week by the American Academy of Neurology-- Life-span cognitive activity, neuropathologic burden, and cognitive aging-- indicates that brain-stimulating activities helps preserve memory as we age. Late last month we tried shedding light on the fallacies around the pop culture conventional wisdom about digital dementia. The implications of this study go even further. Blogging can save your mind.

The study involved 294 people who were tested for memory and thinking every year for six years until they died, at which point, their brains were examined through autopsy for physical signs of dementia.

[R]esearchers discovered that individuals who participated in mentally stimulating activities in both early and late life showed a slower decline of memory compared to those who did not participate in such activities during their lifetime. Mental activity accounted for about 15 percent of the difference in decline, beyond the percentage that could be explained by plaques and tangles present in the brain.

Study author, Dr. Robert S. Wilson of the Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, said, "Our study suggests that exercising your brain by taking part in activities such as these from across a person’s lifetime, from childhood through old age, is important for brain health in old age."

The research also showed the rate of decline was reduced by 32 percent in individuals participating in frequent mental activity during late life in comparison to people participating in average mental activity. The rate of decline in those who participated in infrequent activity was 48 percent faster than those participating in average activity levels.

"Based on this, we shouldn’t underestimate the effects of everyday activities, such as reading and writing, on our children, ourselves and our parents or grandparents," Wilson further explained.

"More frequent cognitive activity across the life span has an association with slower late-life cognitive decline that is independent of common neuropathologic conditions, consistent with the cognitive reserve hypothesis," the researchers wrote in the study’s abstract.

Of the 10 oldest members of the Senate-- each over 75 years old-- only two have announced retirement, Jay Rockefeller (the youngest of the bunch) and Carl Levin.

• Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)- 1933
• Chuck Grassley (R-IA)- 1933
• Orrin Hatch (R-UT)- 1934
• Richard Shelby (R-AL)- 1934
• Carl Levin (D-MI)- 1934
• Jim Inhofe (R-OK)- 1934
• Pat Roberts (R-KS)- 1936
• Barbara Milkulski (D-MD)- 1936
• John McCain (R-AZ)- 1936
• Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)- 1937

Older than any of them is a Texas congressman, Ralph Hall, who was born in 1923 and was rewarded for being a loud opponent of climate science and a nonbeliever in evolution by being appointed chairman of the House Science Committee by John Boehner. In February, he joined Twitter-- @RalphHallPress, indicating he probably doesn't operate the twitter feed himself.

"First thing-- the name fascinates me. Twitter-- where did they get that?

"...I am pleased to join Twitter in an effort to enhance communication with constituents of the 4th District of Texas. Twitter will allow my constituents to follow important votes and daily activity on Capitol Hill, as well as important issues facing our Nation.

"Twitter is also an economically responsible form of communication-- no taxpayer dollars were spent to open my account, and constituents can read and join Twitter for free. It is my priority to listen to the voices of my constituents and focus my efforts on their behalf, and Twitter will enhance my ability to do so."

Not likely to stave off senility and... too late anyway.

How Hostile To Science Are Republican Congressmen?

Ralph Hall, ancient GOP Science denier heads the Science Committee

We started looking at the House Science Committee when a particularly brainless and outspoken freshman teabagger, Sandy Adams (R-FL), since defeated in a primary, started ranting and raving in a Science Committee hearing about how the National Weather Service should be disbanded because cable TV does such a great job, never considering exactly where cable TV gets their information. Another member of the committee told me that even most of the Republicans saw Adams as an embarrassment and as a focus for scorn and derision... and amusement. But not all of them. Long passed are the days when a mainstream Republican like Sherwood Boehlert would dominate and chair the Science Committee and spend his career working on environmental policy and energy efficiency. That kind of agenda has become anathema to today's Republican Party which eschews Science as a liberal conspiracy against their single-minded belief in Greed and Avarice. Today the Science Committee is chaired by the oldest (90) and one of the most senile Members of Congress, Ralph Hall, a former Texas Blue Dog who switched to the GOP after voting to impeach Bill Clinton, getting in on the Abramoff gravy train and endorsing George W. Bush. So what qualifies Hall to be chairman of the Science Committee? He's one of Congress' leading Climate Change deniers and has accused climate scientists of concocting the evidence for anthopogenic climate change in order to receive federal research grants. What more evidence could Boehner and Cantor possibly want to give Hall the gig?

In fact, when you look at the committee, you sense that Boehner and Cantor were being a little ironic when making the assignments. Aside from weather expert Adams, the committee is chock full of flat-earth sociopaths, teabaggers like Paul Broun (R-GA), Todd Akin (R-MO), the GOP expert in lady parts, and internet porn expert Ben Quayle (R-AZ). Other notably anti-Science members of the Science Committee include Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), Randy Neugebauer (R-TX), Steven Palazzo (R-MI), Lamar Smith (R-TX), Frank Lucas (R-OK), Chip Cravaack (R-MN) and Larry Bucshon (R-IN).

This month, with the election coming up, Scientific American decided to ask a simple question-- and answer it scientifically: Does Congress Get A Passing Grade On Science? They contacted 32 congressional leaders involved in science on their committees but only 9-- 7 Democrats and 2 Republicans-- agreed to respond.

We have responses to all eight questions from Reps. Henry Waxman (Committee on Energy and Commerce), Chris Van Hollen (Committee on the Budget), Ralph Hall (Committee on Science, Space and Technology), Timothy Bishop (Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment) and John Mica (Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure); Senators who responded were Jay Rockefeller (Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation), Tom Harkin (Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions) and Dianne Feinstein (Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development). House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi answered five of the eight questions.

The following legislators declined to participate: Sens. Michael Enzi (Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions) and Jeff Sessions (Committee on the Budget) as well as Speaker of the House John Boehner and Rep. Collin Peterson (Committee on Agriculture). Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's press secretary informed SA that the senator ultimately did not have time to get to the questions before the deadline. Sen. Ron Wyden's press team wrote that the member of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, has a policy not to respond to survey questions.

The remaining elected officials did not respond: from the House, Frank Lucas (Committee on Agriculture), Scott Garrett (Committee on the Budget), Fred Upton (Committee on Energy and Commerce), Edward J. Markey and Doc Hastings (both on the Committee on Natural Resources), Eddie Bernice Johnson (Committee on Science, Space and Technology), Bob Gibbs (Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment) and Nick Rahall (Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure); from the Senate, Pat Roberts and Debbie Stabenow (both on the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry), Patty Murray (Committee on the Budget), Jim DeMint (Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation), Lisa Murkowski (Committee on Energy and Natural Resources), James Inhofe and Barbara Boxer (both on the Committee on Environment and Public Works), Harry Reid (majority leader) and Lamar Alexander (Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development).

We posted the responses in full and we welcome your analysis in the comments. Do congressional leaders weigh science when forming their policies? How do they plan to fund and regulate research? We are not asking politicians to be scientists, but we are asking them to consider the evidence when shaping U.S. science policy for the future.

Here are the questions:

• Innovation and the Economy. Science and technology have been responsible for over half of the growth of the U.S. economy since WWII, when the federal government first prioritized peacetime science mobilization. But several recent reports question America's continued leadership in these vital areas. What policies will best ensure that America remains a world leader in innovation?

• Climate Change. The Earth's climate is changing and there is concern about the potentially adverse effects of these changes on life on the planet. What is your position on cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, and other policies proposed to address global climate change-- and what steps can we take to improve our ability to tackle challenges like climate change that cross national boundaries?

[Chairman Hall's response:

As Chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee I have had the opportunity to hear from widely respected scientists on all sides of this question. The only thing that is clear is that there continues to be great debate and uncertainty among these experts regarding the extent of natural climate variability versus human impacts, and what, if anything, enactment of economy-wide greenhouse gas regulations might do to alter our changing climate. I do not ignore those who, like former Vice President Al Gore, warn us about the seriousness of global warming. We should get the best science and stay abreast of any threat from human impacts, but I am disturbed that we have spent over thirty billion dollars studying climate change and have little to show for it.

More importantly, however, science alone does not and cannot tell us if cap-and-trade or other greenhouse gas regulatory regimes are a good idea; many other factors-- particularly economic consequences-- must be considered to answer this question. Unfortunately, this Administration has pursued a regulate-at-any-cost agenda with respect to greenhouse gases, completely disregarding the harmful impacts on our long-sputtering economy. Until we have a better handle on these issues, I will continue to oppose regulation of greenhouse gases because of the significant threat it presents to American jobs, the economy, and energy affordability and reliability.]

• Research and the Future.  Federally funded research has helped to produce America's major postwar economies and to ensure our national security, but today the UK, Singapore, China, and Korea are making competitive investments in research.  Given that the next Congress will face spending constraints, what priority would you give to investment in research in your upcoming budgets?

• Education.  Increasingly, the global economy is driven by science, technology, engineering and math, but a recent comparison of 15-year-olds in 65 countries found that average science scores among U.S. students ranked 23rd, while average U.S. math scores ranked 31st.  In your view, why have American students fallen behind over the last three decades, and what role should the federal government play to better prepare students of all ages for the science and technology-driven global economy?

• Energy. Many policymakers and scientists say energy security and sustainability are major problems facing the United States this century. What policies would you support to meet the demand for energy while ensuring an economically and environmentally sustainable future?

• Fresh Water. Less than one percent of the world's water is liquid fresh water, and scientific studies suggest that a majority of U.S. and global fresh water is now at risk because of increasing consumption, evaporation and pollution. What steps, if any, should the federal government take to secure clean, abundant fresh water for all Americans?

• The Internet. The Internet plays a central role in both our economy and our society. What role, if any, should the federal government play in managing the Internet to ensure its robust social, scientific, and economic role?

• Science in Public Policy. We live in an era when science and technology affect every aspect of life and society, and so must be included in well-informed public policy decisions. How will you ensure that policy and regulatory decisions are fully informed by the best available scientific and technical information, and that the public is able to evaluate the basis of these policy decisions?

Henry Waxman's response to the last question puts the entire debate about the GOP attitude towards Science into valuable context:

Effective policies must be informed by the best scientific and technical information available. When policymakers reject the science, the result is bad policy. Unfortunately, science-denial seems to be the norm on Capitol Hill these days.

The Republican denial of climate change science is a prime example of this irresponsible approach. According to the eminent scientific journal Nature, members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee have taken positions on climate change that are "fundamentally anti-science" and the result of "willful ignorance," making it "hard to escape the conclusion that the U.S. Congress has entered the intellectual wilderness." Notwithstanding the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and is a serious threat, House Republicans unanimously supported a bill, H.R. 910, to overturn EPA's scientific finding that climate change endangers public health and welfare. During the floor debate on H.R. 910, I offered an amendment that stated, "Congress accepts the scientific findings of the Environmental Protection Agency that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for public health and welfare." All but one House Republican voted to reject these scientific findings.

Many House Republicans explained their rejection of EPA's scientific findings by stating their view that the science is "not settled." At the same time, House Republicans have voted to cut funding for climate research that could provide more insight into the pace and likely impacts of climate change. They have also refused to hold hearings to better understand the overwhelming body of existing scientific evidence showing that climate change is occurring.

Policymakers cannot address serious problems such as climate change by denying their existence. Congress should be holding hearings with the nation's top scientists to understand the problems we face so that we can design sensible policies to tackle those problems. I have repeatedly requested these hearings. So far, the Republican leaders I have written have not even bothered to respond. It is a deplorable record.

Will Ralph Hall, The House's Oldest Member, Be Destroyed By Teabaggers? Or Will He Switch Back To The Democratic Party?

Ralph Hall being confronted by his constituents in Sherman

A few weeks ago several friends of mine in Congress told me that they felt there was some chance Ralph Hall might switch parties. He didn't. There are only two Republicans who have voted across the aisle more than Hall, Libertarian Ron Paul and another former Democrat (like Hall), Rodney Alexander of Louisiana. Alexander-- and to some extent Hall-- have swung more into the GOP lockstep obstructionism mode this year, but Hall is an extremely well-liked member of Congress on both sides of the aisle. Born in 1923, he's the dean of the Republican House caucus, the oldest member of the House and, after Senator Robert Byrd, the oldest member of Congress. He's also the ranking Republican on the Science Committee. Hall holds the seat once occupied, for 48 years, by the legendary for Speaker Sam Rayburn. A founder of the Blue Dogs and a very conservative Democrat, Hall was a friend of Bush's, endorsed him against Gore and finally made the natural Blue Dog jump in 2004, switching to the GOP (some say in a deal with Tom DeLay to not gerrymander him out of political existence). The Republicans got Hall tangled up with corrupt lobbyist Jack Abramoff and in a more politically astute district he might have lost re-election. But Texas' 4th CD, stretching from the northern Dallas suburbs east to Texarkana, has a PVI of R+17. He's been re-elected with gargantuan landslides (68% in 2004, her first as a Republican, 65% in 2006 and 69% in 2008 when McCain beat Obama 69-30%).

This year Hall is in big trouble, though not from Democrats. The teabaggers are circling. He has 5 opponents in the Republican primary this year. All of them are attacking him from the right. Lou Gigliotti is a former race car driver who seems obsessed, like every townshirt teabagger I've ever met, with his hatred of Hispanics and his ranting and raving about making English the official language and repealing the 16th and 17th amendments to the Constitution, which he also mentions must be defended "at all times, in all places." Total psycho. And so is Steve Clark, who, though not a red neck, describes himself as a "Tea Party Republican." Even worse is an evangelical religionist nut, John Cooper, who brags that he supports the teabaggers and tries his best to sound like a populist. Joshua Kowert is a pretentious right-wing blogger who is the only one of Hall's Republican opponents not overtly claiming the teabagger mantle. The last one is Jerry Ray Tea Hall (no relation to the congressman) who actually added "Tea" to his name. He's so over-the-top insane that the last time he ran against Ralph Hall, when Hall was still a Democrat in 1996 Republican Senator Phil Gramm campaigned for the Democrat! Jerry Ray Tea appears to be certifiably insane and his campaign centers on deporting "illegals," killing affirmative action, teaching creationism and "putting God back in our courts, schools and communities."

Hall isn't the only Texas Republican incumbent being challenged by a pack of teabaggers-- although he has more of them on his ass than anyone else. 11 of the 20 Texas Republicans have teabagger challengers. Although the GOP Establishment dismisses them as meaningless pests, their hysteria is a sign of discontent among rightists, discontent and hysteria that is likely to consume them.

Texas has one of the most conservative delegations in Congress, yet more than half of the state's Republicans in the U.S. House face challengers from the right – most inspired by the anti-tax Tea Party movement... Many of the challengers want little more than to vent, shake up the GOP and prod Washington toward fiscal responsibility. If they win, so much the better. Others want it all: a GOP purified by combat and reborn ideologically.

...[NRCC chair Pete] Sessions himself faces a challenger with Tea Party ties, David Smith, who has been hammering him over alleged ethical lapses, exploding federal deficits of the last decade, and the campaign committee's support for "electable" House candidates rather than those who stick to a more strict conservative line.

"If we're going to go back to a Republican-controlled Congress, we need to make sure we have the right people," Smith said... Tea Party organizers estimate they have about 100,000 activists in Texas, probably not enough to tip any election. The movement isn't a party at all-- it has little organization and no central push to recruit candidates-- but more a loose federation of like-minded activists.

"People are fired up," Emanuelson said, though he readily conceded the incumbents are hard to beat. And when it comes to Sessions, most Tea Party members are "pretty happy" with his votes, if not with the campaign committee's willingness to back moderate candidates.

"A lot of us have mixed feelings about Republicans taking back control of the House," Emanuelson said.

Aside from Hall and Sessions, the other Texas Republicans facing challenges from the teabaggers are Kevin Brady (Scott Baker, Melecio Franco, Tyler Russell); Mike McCaul (Rick Martin, Joe Petronis); Mike Conaway (Al Cowan, Chris Younts); Kay Granger (Mike Brasovan, Matthew Kelly); Ron Paul (John Gay, Tim Graney, Gerald Wall); Lamar Smith (Stephen Schoppe); Kenny Marchant (Frank Roszell); Michael Burgess (James Herford); and John Carter (Raymond Yamka). Many the wackiest, craziest, most psychotic man win!