Rick vs. Kay

Internal Turmoil... uh... ya think?

2012-01-23T17:34:00.000-06:00

Now that Rick is out of the race... notice not before... Jason Embry got some Rick staffers to talk about the internal divisions...

Here is his story (link). Excerpt follows...

A close-knit team of aides and advisers helped make Gov. Rick Perry the state's most formidable politician in the past 12 years, writing and executing one winning game plan after another in Perry's three gubernatorial elections.
But key members of that team played smaller and smaller roles as Perry the presidential candidate ambled toward poor showings in Iowa and New Hampshire and, ultimately, a decision to depart the race two days before Saturday's South Carolina primary.
[SNIP]
Carney and Allbaugh butted heads. Aides loyal to Carney say Allbaugh was intimidated by Carney and wanted to play a strategy role for which he was not suited. Allbaugh sympathizers say Carney was unwilling to share power. On the Sunday night after Thanksgiving, according to three Perry campaign sources, Allbaugh told Carney not to return to Austin.
"The message was, 'We'll call you if we need you,'" one source said.
Carney has said little publicly about his departure, and he declined to comment for this story. But he told the Union-Leader in New Hampshire on Thursday, "I haven't been actively involved in the campaign for quite a while, a few months."
When the Union-Leader asked him to explain how his role changed, he replied: "I honestly don't know the answer to that. I don't know what happened, and I was there."

Joe Allbaugh seems to be the common denominator in all of this...

In the Texas Tribune Jay Root has a scathing piece on Joe Allbaugh's apparent ineptitude (link). Excerpt follows...

“We’ve got to make sure we put our best foot forward for Rick and Penny,” a senior adviser recalls Allbaugh telling the gathering.
Rick and Penny?
Presumably, he meant Anita Perry, the governor’s wife.

Rick and Penny? Allbaugh was way out of his element according to this reporting...

In the ashes of his campaign collapse, it is now clear that the tension between two distinct camps — Allbaugh and a group of Washington, D.C. consultants on the one hand, and longtime Austin-based staffers on the other — became so toxic that people who had been willing to lie down on the tracks for Perry were demoralized, worn out and looking for the exit ramp.
“I’d rather take a shower with Jerry Sandusky than go through another month of this,” one veteran Perry adviser said in late December, just before the Iowa caucuses. “This campaign isn’t capable of winning.”
Staffers took to calling Allbaugh “Jack,” and eventually “Uncle Jack,” because he so frequently called people by the wrong name, often even labeling the Perry operation the “Bush campaign.” It seemed that he was stuck in the previous decade, some of them said.

That is amazingly harsh... rather take a shower with Jerry Sandusky? Oh my...

It also sounds like the online team was being stymied and micro managed by Joe Allbaugh...

In early December, at a meeting of the online team at the Stephen F. Austin Hotel, Allbaugh made it clear that he had taken over. One participant at the meeting said the online team had been trying for weeks to gain approval for targeted online media outreach, harnessing technology to draw engaged supporters in — a strategy developed when Carney and Johnson were still running the show.
Allbaugh wanted more banner and display ads, which the online team considered a less effective and outdated approach, the adviser said.
Allbaugh "put his hands on the table pretty forcefully,” the senior online strategist said. “He said, ‘You guys have to forget everything you’ve done up to this point.'”
“'I’m in charge,'’’ the official quoted Allbaugh as saying. “'What you’re going to do is what I decide is best for this campaign.'”

From my observational perspective... and from some drinks with two or three of Rick's real team over the past few days... I have to say the animosity toward Joe Allbaugh is set to 11 as Spinal Tap might say... it is also essentially unanimous and unfiltered... there is hardly any room for deviation... Joe Allbaugh is 100% the problem in the minds of the people I trust in Rick's organization. These aren't 20 year old interns venting about their mean bosses. These are accomplished and experienced peeps with highly specific problems with how things were run.

Here is one thing that has not been fully exposed in any of these obituary stories on Rick's campaign... not making the Virginia ballot. That was a blunder that probably ended Rick's momentum he seemed to have at that particular moment... Rick could have then gone into Iowa and said... "LOOK... it is down to Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and me... I am the only 'not Romney' candidate with the organization and the money to win... those other jokers could not even make the ballot in future states... so it is time to coalesce around me the only competent and credible candidate who has what it takes to go the distance..."

Instead... Rick not only didn't make the ballot, his disqualification was the first to be announced... so it sat out there for hours before he was joined by Newt and others...

In terms of strategic blunders, every reporter harps on "debate prep...." as if raising millions less in money and doing several days more of debate prep could have made the difference... "Oops" happened long after Joe Allbaugh had taken over let's remember... Rick got better at debating not because he had more debate prep sessions but because he was more experienced at debates... he did what 15 or 18 by the end? Also from everything we are reading Rick's back pain really did play into it all... and that seems to have subsided in recent weeks... which explains why he has been sharper in more recent debates...

Peggy Fikac and Rick Dunham offer some insight (link)...

When the debates commenced, Perry was a self-described piñata. He also sustained self-inflicted wounds well before the infamous “oops” moment when he could remember only two of the three federal departments he wanted to close.
Perry sometimes seemed confused, as in this Florida tongue-twister: “I think Americans just don’t know sometimes which Mitt Romney they’re dealing with. Is it the Mitt Romney that was on the side of — against the Second Amendment before he was for the Second Amendment? Was it — was before — he was before the social programs, from the standpoint of — he was for standing up for Roe vs. Wade before he was against Roe vs. Wade? He was — uh — for Race to the Top, he’s for — Obamacare, and now he’s against it. I mean, we’ll wait until tomorrow and, and, and see which Mitt Romney we’re really talking to tonight.”
The campaign source said Perry had written the line out on the pad in front of him. “He just couldn’t get it out.”

What about the strategic blunder no reporter is talking about... deciding it was Iowa or bust without creating any sort of backup plan in the event that Iowa didn't go as well as planned...

Here is the thing... Rick could never do well in Iowa with his anti ethanol subsidy principles... look at who did well in Iowa... it was ethanol lovers Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney... but Rick clearly ran out of money after Iowa because Joe Allbaugh did not manage the money very well... if Rick had spent the same amount in Iowa I bet he would have gotten roughly the same place in the polls... and he could have saved it and waited around for the right opportunity... most of those who have surged in this race have surged because they have played under the radar for a while... Rick could have done that then surged after Iowa and New Hampshire... perhaps closer to Super Tuesday when it became a true dichotomy between Mitt Romney versus Rick...

And here is the other thing... when New Hampshire got cut out entirely that sent a message that Rick was a regional candidate... regional candidates don't do well even in the region they are supposed to do well in because even the home town boy is considered unelectable if he doesn't even give it a try in difficult terrain like New Hampshire... by going Iowa or bust Rick not only ended his chances in New Hampshire he ended his chances in South Carolina... and speaking of South Carolina... Rick abandoned South Carolina until retreating there after Iowa... his campaign should have been continuing the fight in South Carolina all along rather than trying to perform well from scratch and from a position of weakness after Iowa...

Other strategic blunders from my perspective that occurred under the Joe Allbaugh regime... you had these wonderful policy plans... just top notch... by far the best of any candidate... and what seemed to happen after Joe Allbaugh came in... they were rarely if ever talked about ever again... what happened to the flat tax? What happened to the big bold reforms that people got so excited about in the first place? Those were sidelined... there was intermittent talk of a part time Congress, and I am sure it tested well in polls but that was just one piece of a bigger and more comprehensive plan to clean up the cesspool known as Washington DC....

On the "Strong" ad... obviously it was a horrible mistake... it is one of the most disliked things on all of You Tube... it made Rick into a clown and will hurt his national reputation long into the future... it was on a bizarre narrow message when everyone cared about jobs and he had the best jobs credentials of any one in the field... at the time we heard that Tony Fabrizio hated it because he was himself gay... and he was some sort of lone voice of reason... but we now know it was mostly the Austin staff that hated it and the Washington consultants pushing it... that ad more than oops or anything else will likely be why Rick won't be able to win the nomination in 2016 when Obama is finishing up his second term...

Speaking of ads... why did Rick's team not focus more on how he had done amazing things in Texas... they had one or two lines about a million jobs while the rest of the country lost 2 million... but those sounded like abstract numbers standing alone and engineered or fudged to make Rick look good... because all statistics are fungible... Rick's team did engage bloggers and equip us with lots and lots of facts on the subject through daily emails, online chats, and conference calls... but it seemed like there was a big disconnect from Rick's blogger messages about all the amazing things Rick had done as governor of Texas which would have worked in my humble opinion... versus his television ad and direct mail messaging which clearly had no discernible or perhaps a negatively discernible impact... Rick's blogger out reach was also the only place I saw any serious push back on the in state tuition issue or the Gardasil issue for example... it was almost completely absent every where else...

One more thing from Christie Hoppe (link)....

One campaign insider told me Carney was effectively fired from the presidential campaign by Joe Allbaugh – brought in as the “make the trains run on time” guy — around Thanksgiving and has no remaining contractual ties to Perry.
Asked if Carney would work with Perry in the future, the insider said, “I don't see a scenario where that would happen,” adding that Perry “let Joe Allbaugh make personnel decisions, and this is the fruit of that.”
Of course, politics is business, and Carney told me by email, “Whomever speculated on what I might do or not do is flat-ass wrong.”
But politics is also personal, and the people who'd worked so hard for Perry in Texas looked shell-shocked after the off-the-rails campaign led to them being sidelined, then nationally skewered.

I hope that this disaster of a presidential race doesn't impact the 2013 legislative session... I hope Joe Allbaugh is nowhere near the Capitol when this all blows over... the disaster he left behind at FEMA under George Bush was clearly not an outlier in his career. Would Carney go back to run Rick's team after being discarded so casually when the heat got turned up a bit? We will see won't we... so far Dave Carney has shown himself to be a big man in all of this so I wouldn't put it past him to be a big man and take back over as if nothing had happened.

Emily Ramshaw closes with this (link)...

Republican insiders in Texas say the bulk of the rebuilding Perry needs to do is with his longtime state-based staff, some of whom felt they got big-footed by national consultants in a rough-and-tumble campaign. Whether Perry simply finishes out his term as governor, runs for re-election, or makes another national run — as his advisers have suggested he could do — he will need them in his corner.
“There are a lot of bruised ribs,” said the Perry adviser. “After the requisite period of time, I think you’ll see all the familiar and competent faces.”

How bad were things that Rick not only lost his race for president... but his famously loyal team also feels like they don't know where they stand with Rick any more?

I don't know all the details of what actually went on... I doubt anyone does... even many of those on the inside... but I can say I had a feeling all along that a lot of this KIND OF stuff was going on, and I give Rick's peeps a lot of credit for keeping it to themselves even as the Washington consultant peeps were selfishly spilling the beans to POLITICO before Iowa even took place. How many leaks were there throughout this campaign after basically zero leaks in the history of Rick's political career with Dave Carney as the bossman? I hope candidates look at those Washington consultants and think twice before bringing them into their teams. I also hope that this marks the end of the Allbaugh era in Perryworld... and I hope Rick can go back to being an effective governor who fights the establishment rather than bringing them in to sink his fortunes...

Texas needs Rick to finish his term strong and decide what comes next... if he finishes strong in the way many of us believe he can he will be in the driver's seat yet again when that time comes for him to decide what comes next... while if he continues down the path he has been on for the past few months he will be road kill... I hope with some reflection and the daily grind of the campaign trail out of the way he can see how he was taken advantage of and how he trusted the wrong peeps...

Abby Rapoport is right... Rick should have stuck with his 2010 strategy...

2012-01-23T12:05:00.001-06:00

While many seem quick to write the Rick post mortems and say that the Texans just were not ready for prime time... with all due respect that is nonsense. Rick's Texas team we now know was cut out extremely early in the process...

Abby Rapoport writing in CNN nails it when she sez Rick and his peeps should have run the 2010 game plan (link). Excerpt follows...

But as we review all the political errors and bone-headed gaffes the campaign committed over the last six months, the biggest mistake is easy to miss: Perry and his team didn't stick with the strategies that made them such a strong political force in his home state.

Rick Perry's 2010 gubernatorial campaign was a masterpiece of political strategy. Running against U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, a politician who had both better poll numbers and deeper pockets, Perry was supposed to be the underdog. By all appearances, the only way he could win, was if he could get a low-turnout primary of party loyalists.
Of course, that's not what happened. His team decided to pursue what was, at the time, an unusual strategy. They charged for yard signs and didn't bother with mailers. They held off on television until just before the primary. They invested most of their dollars instead into a massive grassroots effort known as Perry Home Headquarters. They asked supporters to find 12 pro-Perry votes among their friends and family and then promise to get those people to the polls. Perry ultimately won the primary in a landslide?with unprecedented turnout.
It was an innovative idea based in science. In 2006, then-chief Perry strategist Dave Carney had allowed four political scientists to get up close to the campaign and study which tactics yielded the most votes.Such collaboration is almost unheard of, but the Perry folks used the information to create one of the most effective grassroots operations in the country. The professors found that most typical campaign tactics, like mailers and robocalls, have almost no impact on delivering votes. Television's effect was short lived. Only grassroots organizing actually seemed to deliver votes.
It's a nice tale of political innovation. Who could have guessed what would follow?
Perry's campaigns in Iowa and New Hampshire were almost entirely based around television ads. In South Carolina, the team even invested in mailers?which their own research said was ineffective. Grassroots campaigns take a long time to establish, but Perry and his team chose to wait until August to jump into the race. No aspect of his presidential bid had half as much innovation as his 2010 effort.

I don't get it either... it makes no sense... Rick ran a cookie cutter campaign spending what seems to be millions of dollars on wasteful tactics like direct mail... they didn't heed their own lessons from 2006 and 2010...

Why?

Because as we now know Dave Carney was cut out extremely early... a true shame because I can't imagine he would have allowed Rick to flame out as badly as he did in the end... I am not saying Rick would have won but he definitely would not have burned so many bridges on his way out... making it much more difficult to win future office in Texas or nationally...

Take away the peeps... take away the personalities... I am more angry that I maxed out in my federal donation to Rick's campaign believing he would run a 2010 type of campaign... only to see my dollars wasted on Washington consultant mercenaries who didn't even care about Rick, his legacy, his reputation, or his future... THAT is what makes me angry... regardless of whether it was Dave Carney or Joe Allbaugh at the helm... and like I said... now we finally know that it wasn't Carney... a hunch I had for quite some time based on some of the bizarre things that the campaign did...

I had a feeling this was the case... Dave Carney wasn't "actively involved in the campaign for quite a while, a few months."

2012-01-22T18:01:00.000-06:00

This makes everything make much more sense about Rick's huge campaign implosion. I had a sense that this might have been the case...

Let me just let this speak for itself (link)...

David Carney of Hancock, a nationally-known political strategist, had been Perry's top political adviser since he ran for lieutenant governor of Texas in 1997. Carney and others left the Newt Gingrich campaign in June to go with his long-time friend and boss as he mulled a presidential run, and eventually decided to run.
At first, Carney was Perry's chief presidential campaign strategist, but in the fall, when a new regime headed by former George W. Bush advisor Joe Allbaugh was brought in by Perry, Carney's role was severely diminished, even if he was not officially demoted.
As it turned out, Carney was not in South Carolina today when Perry dropped out. He was home in Hancock.
In fact, Carney told the Primary Status today, “I haven't been actively involved in the campaign for quite a while, a few months.”
Carney, a well-respected political operative who got his start in Gov. John H. Sununu's State House office in the early 1980s and who headed the George H.W. Bush (41) White House political office, declined to criticize the Allbaugh regime in retrospect.

It takes a big man... and I am not talking about mass... to do what Dave Carney did here... here is Dave Carney, who arguably is responsible for Rick's rise to presidential contender status in the first place... Dave Carney who has been with Perry for more than a decade... Dave Carney who we now know was not even really actively involved in Rick's campaign for years... Dave Carney who nevertheless has been the scapegoat for the ineptitude of unscrupulous Washington based consultants who actually were running the show... here is Dave Carney with a chance to settle scores and correct the record... so loyal that he refuses to engage in sniping... instead of telling the world the short comings of Joe Allbaugh... the Bushie who hand picked and groomed Michael Brown as his successor at FEMA... instead of pointing out that he was not even involved in the abortion of a campaign over the past few months... Dave Carney chose to stay above the level...

Think about that...

Here is Dave Carney... the guy who helped make Rick the success he has been... and who has been blamed for Rick's presidential implosion even though he hasn't even been involved for a long long time... here is Dave Carney, with a perfect opportunity to settle scores and let everyone know just what he really thinks of Bushie Joe Allbaugh... here is Carney's opportunity to deflect blame onto blame's rightful owner... and what does he do? He "declined to criticize the Allbaugh regime" in retrospect.

Like I said it takes a big man to do what Carney did...

A blog that popped up over the past few months the Rick Perry Report agrees with me (link)...

Harsh criticism was leveled against Texas Gov. Rick Perry's national campaign manager Dave Carney by unnamed sources in Politico the Saturday before the Iowa Caucuses. The article didn't help the Iowa effort, and those "sources" interviewed revealed an astonishing amount of disloyalty to the candidate that hired them.
But when you're a political consultant, and you see that the polls aren't going your way, it's better for the life of your career that you are the first and loudest to place the blame on the other guy. This is especially true if you're inside the Washington D.C. beltway. That fall guy became Dave Carney.
Carney was hailed as a super-genius of political campaigns who, after leading the Perry fundraising to a record $17.4 million in donations in just 49 days, skillfully engineered Perry's airborne assault into the Iowa narrative, just when Iowa was attempting to create the state's own narrative that candidate Michele Bachmann won the Ames Straw Poll. The bump a straw poll victory would have been was not to be because of Carney's maneuver. Playing off the Perry image, Perry announced his candidacy in South Carolina just as the straw poll results were announced.
Sasha Issenberg scrambled to release his book that relied upon scientific studies of the 2006 Perry Gubernatorial campaign. It was released as an ebook on Amazon just as Perry plunged into the presidential campaign: Rick Perry and His Eggheads: Inside the Brainiest Political Operation in America, A Sneak Preview from The Victory Lab (Amazon link in new window). "As general campaign consultant, Carney was suspicious of the various vendors selling their wares to political campaigns," Issenberg explained. "The television vendors told him to buy more TV ads, the printer told him to buy more direct mail. He wasn't sure any of it worked."
The Perry campaign of 2006 hired scientists to study the effects of various campaign techniques. Issenberg's full interview:

Issenberg explains that the results of the studies, as explained in his book, indicate that candidates get more favorable coverage in local media when the candidate visits personally than from the statewide or national press pool reports. Aggressive retail campaigning was the centerpiece of the Carney campaign, and it was copied by Allbaugh even after Carney was vanquished to Fort New Hampshire. There, like Confederate General Lloyd Tilghman at Fort Henry, Carney was abandoned and cut off, starved of resources and forced to surrender with only 1,500 pitiful votes on primary day in January.
Carney gave his postmortem of sorts to the New Hampshire Union-Leader. His summary: There wasn't enough time to prepare and raise the cash to compete, the early debates became a huge hurdle, and there wasn't enough candidate time to tend to the "vineyard" of support he could have grown in New Hampshire.
No where in his remarks were snarky criticisms of his peers or the candidate himself.

The POLITICO article that hit just days before the Iowa caucuses and arguably helped to stunt Rick's mild surge in the polls at that time was entirely one sided... it was all anonymous Washington consultant hacks trying to save their reputations and hides... all while Rick's actual loyal team held their fire and remained loyal and above the fray... in fact here was Dave Carney's quote at that time (link)...

Carney, a longtime GOP strategist who worked for Bush 41’s presidential campaigns, declined to comment for this story.
“I don’t think so,” he said in response to an email asking to get his side. “Not much good can come from process stories like this.”

He is right... and in the history of Rick's team I have never seen anything like that POLITICO article. Heads should have rolled that very day. In fact I would wager that if heads had rolled a lot of people might have had more confidence in Rick... and you would have avoided Erick Erickson calling for campaign changes (link)...

Here is a blog I wrote but didn't publish months ago because I was having trouble getting answers from my contacts at Rick's campaign who were extremely tight lipped until Friday, and I didn't want to post something without knowing I was on the right track from discussions with them... what follows is a blog I wrote in early December...

This article from the Huffington Post... yes that Huffington Post... is stunning (link). Excerpt follows...
WASHINGTON -- Texas Gov. Rick Perry's newest television ad criticizing the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell was created over the objections of at least one top staff member, sources in the Perry campaign tell The Huffington Post.
The spot, which began airing in Iowa on Wednesday, features the governor questioning why soldiers can serve openly in the military while children "can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school." Coming a day after Perry criticized the Obama administration for using foreign aid to defend gay rights abroad, the ad was one more note in a fairly overt dog whistle aimed at the Hawkeye State's influential evangelical voting block.
But not everyone was comfortable with the script. When the ad was being crafted several weeks ago, Perry's top pollster, Tony Fabrizio, called it "nuts," according to an email sent from Fabrizio to the ad's main creator, longtime GOP operative Nelson Warfield. In a separate email to The Huffington Post, Warfield confirmed that the ad was made over Fabrizio's objections.
"Tony was against it from the get-go," Warfield wrote. "It was the source of some extended conversation in the campaign. To be very clear: That spot was mine from writing the poll question to test[ing] it to drafting the script to overseeing production."
That a presidential campaign would suffer from internal disagreements over a controversial ad or broader campaign strategy is far from shocking. High-stakes political operations are often rife with strategic disputes. But it is rare for those disputes to spill over into public view and even rarer (at least when it comes to Republican politics) for them to center on the issue of gay rights.
It just so happens that several members of Perry's campaign staff have worked to advance LGBT causes inside the GOP. Liz Mair, a consultant to the Texas governor, serves on the advisory board of the group GOProud. And Fabrizio has done polling for the Log Cabin Republicans in addition to urging lawmakers to reconsider their approach to the culture wars and embrace basic fairness for gay Americans on the issue of marriage. He was considered an ally by pro-gay rights conservatives.
This isn't a unique feature of Perry's campaign. Republican candidates are increasingly relying on younger operatives who are far more sympathetic to gay rights. Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour did during his exploratory run for the presidential nomination earlier this year. But Barbour never aired a blatantly anti-gay ad campaign that demonized one of the LGBT community's signature legislative achievements.
"It is the height of hypocrisy for Tony Fabrizio to have been a part of that," said Jimmy LaSalvia, co-founder and executive director of GOProud. "He has lined his pockets for years with money from the gay community to conduct polls to ostensibly help gay people in this country, and for him to be a part of this is the height of Washington hypocrisy. It is absolutely what is wrong with Washington. It is all about the payday for these people."
If Fabrizio found the ad repugnant and it aired over his objections, LaSalvia argued, he should have quit in protest. "Perry said in the ad that the service of tens of thousands of patriotic gay Americans is what's wrong in this country," LaSalvia said. "That is an outrageous and un-American statement."
Reached by email, Fabrizio confirmed that he was uncomfortable with the ad. But he said he was going to follow the advice he has given to candidates throughout his career: "If you start answering personal attacks, you are just rewarding the attacker."
Other sources familiar with the Perry campaign have said that Warfield is the one driving the sharp cultural conservative tones that have come from the candidate in recent days. In addition to coming out against openly gay service in the armed forces, the campaign has tested voter reaction against taxpayer-funded abortion and defunding Planned Parenthood.
Reached by phone, Ray Sullivan, a spokesman for the Perry campaign, called the internal disagreements and the external criticism over the ad "irrelevant."
"This ad is about the governor's faith, the governor's belief and his campaign, not about any one else," Sullivan said. "And the ad talks about what Perry views as this administration pushing a liberal agenda in places like the military, while at the same time praying at football games, moments of silence at school and celebrating Christmas in the public arena is frequently verboten and certainly not defended by this administration. The bottom line is that the ad is about Governor Perry's faith and his belief."
Sullivan noted that Perry has not formally come out for reinstating Don't Ask, Don't Tell, should he become president. His decision to criticize the open service of gays in the military, in short, was made from a personal, not a policy, perspective.
"It seems Governor Perry wants to be theocrat in chief, not commander in chief," said R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans.
This is not the Rick or Rick campaign I know. Tony Fabrizio is allegedly the top consultant and strategist on Rick's campaign. He is throwing the entire campaign under the bus. He is throwing Rick himself under the bus when Rick is already under fire for making what many believe is a really bad and controversial advertisement. The backlash was too much for Tony on this so he just looked out for himself instead of his candidate or his campaign he is allegedly the boss of. And who are these peeps anyway? Are they even looking out for Rick's reputation here, or are they just trying to make a buck? This is really strange... I have never seen such breakdown on Rick's team in decades of following his career.

Even if Tony is right about hating this commercial... and he is right... for this infighting to be aired this way is such a break from the entire history of Rick's team.

Rick's old team would never have let this happen. In the entire history of Rick's team I have never ever seen anything remotely like the public infighting in this article. Rick's team doesn't even leak things except on purpose, until now. They have always been so disciplined. So loyal. So on message. What happened there? Why did Rick's team throw out the playbook from 2010 and bring in these second rate national consultants who air their dirty laundry and fight with each other in public? This is just so bizarre.

This is really strange. Rick has run such a tight ship for so long... his peeps are always loyal to him... he just wins and wins and wins. Bash him for this or that but judging from his legislative accomplishments and results he is the most successful governor in modern American history.

He gets what he wants. He gets things done. I just hope these national consultants do not ruin Rick for the 2013 session...

Can someone fill me in on what in happening? I am feeling very out of the loop and even Rick's team I know from Texas won't talk to me about this issue.

Now we know... and I suspect much more will come out soon... so far we now know that the campaign team that did such a solid job in 2010 was not manning the controls throughout much of what we have seen in recent months...

As someone who believes that campaigns matter... this is really infuriating... especially since I gave the max dollar amount to Rick's 2012 hopes... only to see him end the campaign less than three weeks into 2012... I gave my money thinking I was giving to the Rick I've seen in action and his campaign team I have seen succeed over the years... instead I was giving to enrich consultant mercenaries based in Washington at Rick's expense... and make no mistake this campaign hurt Rick nationally as well as back home... in a big way. Had Rick kept his real team together they would never have let him tarnish his legacy and harm his future hopes the way he did...

Three points....

I hope Rick ditches Joe Allbaugh, Tony Fabrizio, Nelson Warfield, and all of the other Washington peeps like a bad habit. They are clearly to blame for the campaign failing. I hope blame is assigned properly...
I hope Rick can make amends with Dave Carney and his old team and bring them back into the fold, if they will have him again. They may not after being discarded so casually.
I hope Rick doesn't allow this to make him cynical about the conservative movement... it would be easy to turn his back on those who so cynically turned their back on him... but he is an important figure and I hope he remains committed to conservative causes rather than what is politically expedient... in this campaign he often veered toward what was politically expedient in the extreme short term...

Flurry of new polls sez Rick is the top dog...

2011-08-24T15:12:00.000-05:00

Rick is the new front runner nationally... which is a scary place to be... but a good place to be as well... you can bet a pretty penny the attacks will only amplify against Rick from all corners... including some on not really the far right so much as the "aligned with another candidate" right.

Gallup is the gold standard, and they have Rick truly surging (link). Excerpt follows...

Shortly after announcing his official candidacy, Texas Gov. Rick Perry has emerged as rank-and-file Republicans' current favorite for their party's 2012 presidential nomination. Twenty-nine percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents nationwide say they are most likely to support Perry, with Mitt Romney next, at 17%.

The Daily Caller also has Rick surging this week (link). Excerpt follows...

Perry now leads the field in all five categories polled this month: first choice, most electable, second choice, best at dealing with the economy, and best at keeping Washington spending under control — often by a large margin.
Perry is the top choice for 29.3 percent of Republicans, handily trouncing Michele Bachmann’s 17.0 percent and Mitt Romney’s 11.1 percent.
But Perry has not just captured the hearts of Republicans; he has also captured the minds of those who are pragmatically looking not just for a nominee they like, but for one who can beat President Barack Obama. He is also considered far and away the most electable, with 46.5 percent naming him the most viable candidate to beat the incumbent president. Romney takes just 19.8 percent of the vote in this category, a sharp drop from July, when he led in this category with 33.5 percent. Michele Bachmann’s share has dropped to just 9.6 percent, falling precipitously from 21.1 percent in July.
That’s particularly problematic for Romney.

Rick as a second pick beats everyone else's first pick.

PPP is one I hate... they oversample Democrats and do a really poor job in Texas in particular... but they also have Rick surging in Iowa and nationally (link). Excerpt follows...

In PPP's first national poll since Rick Perry's official entry into the Presidential race he's jumped out to a double digit advantage. Perry's at 33% to 20% for Mitt Romney, 16% for Michele Bachmann, 8% for Newt Gingrich, 6% for Herman Cain and Ron Paul, 4% for Rick Santorum, and 3% for Jon Huntsman.

Conservative voters have been looking for a candidate that they can rally around and Perry's filling that role. Romney continues to lead with the small portion of voters describing themselves as moderates at 27% t0 20% for Bachmann and 15% for Perry. But Perry gets stronger and stronger as you move across the ideological spectrum. With 'somewhat conservative' voters Perry leads by 15 points with 38% to Romney's 23% and Bachmann's 11%. And with 'very conservative' voters the advantage expands to 22 points with him at 40% to 18% for Bachmann and 14% for Romney.

[SNIP]

Perry also leads head to heads with both Romney (52-36) and Bachmann (56-26). In the match up with Romney Perry picks up Bachmann supporters (47-37), Cain supporters (61-29), Paul supporters (43-28), and Santorum supporters (68-21). Romney gets Gingrich supporters (51-35) and Huntsman supporters (76-24).

In the match up with Bachmann Perry wins Cain supporters (49-38), Gingrich supporters (52-32), Paul supporters (44-28), and Romney supporters (53-20). Huntsman supporters (24-21 for Bachmann) and Santorum supporters (44-43 for Perry) split pretty evenly.

Rick looks like he may be the guy... and in match ups with Obama he is usually about neck and neck... although Rick was actually leading among independents... and Rick seems to do better among likely voters than just casual registered voters...

The game plan now might be to keep Rick on a slow and steady pace. Don't overexpose him. Fight back all the smears and lies from the left and right alike.

A big national lead is important, but a small lead in Iowa can quickly turn into a 4th place finish in the Iowa Caucuses. New Hampshire also remains an up hill climb for Rick, although his fiscal message he stuck with during the 2010 election in Texas could play very well there. South Carolina is likely his for the taking. Florida may be close, but Rick should do well with voters eager for jobs and an improved economy. Nevada, the same....

A few big hurdles are on the way. Debates. The expectations on Rick will be extremely high to perform well at the upcoming forums and debates. He may be underestimated since he didn't debate Bill White, but people falsely claiming off hand that "Rick never debated in 2010" are just not telling the truth... he debated twice in the primary and did well enough to put Kay away by 20+ percentage points and avoid a runoff...

The final big hurdle is money. Rick needs to raise a lot of money and have a lot of money in the bank... he needs to get his super PAC operations in order. He still has a lot of staff to hire in various states and back home in Texas, and he still has a lot of television commercials to produce and air. Those take money. Money will be a big driver of this race, and if Rick can show a solid number after this quarter in which he got a late start he could make it a two person race with Romney... if he does that he wins the nomination even with occasional minor gaffes and errors and missteps... it would just be too difficult for anyone else to overcome that. Still... Romney will have more money than Rick and will likely decide soon to start attacking... but Rick has withstood a lot of money in negative ads spent against him over the years and done just fine...

Rick and Al Gore...

2011-08-22T10:45:00.000-05:00

Texas political reporter R.G. Ratcliffe sort of sets the record straight on Al Gore (link). Excerpt follows...

Rick Perry was NEVER Al Gore’s Texas 1988 chairman
Posted on August 22, 2011 by rgratcliffe

OK, whack on Republican Gov. Rick Perry in his presidential campaign for having once been a Democrat.
Whack on Rick Perry for endorsing Al Gore in his 1988 presidential run.
But would everyone quit saying he was Gore’s state chairman, because it is simply not true.
Gore in 1988 was viewed as the Southern conservative alternative to Jesse Jackson and Michael Dukakis. The leaders of the Gore campaign in Texas were House Speaker Gib Lewis, Democratic Chairman Bob Slagle and Lt. Gov. Bill Hobby.
On Jan. 5, 1988, Gib brought Gore to Austin to receive the endorsement of 27 state legislators. One of them was Rick Perry. If Perry even spoke that day, his words were so lame that they did not get quoted in news stories. In the Houston Chronicle and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Perry was just listed in alphabetical order as one of the lawmakers backing Gore.
I have tried to find a news release from the event to see if there was any possibility that it said something like: Legislative co-chairs for Gore. But I have not found anything like that. So I recently asked an Austin political consultant who was deep into the Gore campaign that year if Perry was chairman. He told me no. He said Perry did the news conference and then a one-day endorsement fly-around of some of the legislators. And that was it.
But the Texas politician who was a state presidential campaign chairman that year was Democrat John Sharp, who was backing Dukakis. In his 1998 lieutenant governor’s race against Perry, Sharp started telling people Perry was Gore’s campaign chairman. Sharp’s campaign in media accounts started off calling Perry vice-chairman of Gore’s campaign, then co-chairman and finally chairman. Perry and his campaign responded to his backing of Gore, but never repudiated the title.
Here is the simple truth. Rick Perry endorsed Al Gore in an effort to suck up to Speaker Gib Lewis in hopes of gaining a House leadership position in the 1989 Legislature. It didn’t happen. Then in the interim afterward, when the Calendars Committee chairman resigned, Perry wanted that position. Gib snubbed him and gave it to speaker pro tem Hugo Berlanga. About 10 days later, Perry switched parties and said he likely would run against Agriculture Commissioner Jim Hightower.
From beginning to end, it was pure political opportunism. If you want to criticize Perry, criticize him for that. But he was never Al Gore’s Texas chairman.

I think a little more context is in order... it was pro gun pro life Southerner Al Gore versus far left liberals like Gephardt, Dukakis, and others... endorsing Al Gore was ironically a way for Rick to prove he was a conservative Democrat and not the new breed of very liberal Democrats...

You might even look at it and conclude that Rick decided when Dukakis won the 1988 nomination that liberals had won the internal battle there was no more hope of reforming his party... Democrats were not worth saving or reforming or returning to their Jeffersonian roots...

So he became a Republican... and the rest is history...

More recommended reading on the Al Gore thing (link). Excerpt follows...

Any discussion of the governor's political past should take into account the following context. First, in the early 1980s in rural West Texas, most if not all routes to Austin ran through the Democratic Party, a party divided into liberal and conservative factions. Second, in 1984, the Democratic Party held more than three-quarters of the seats in the Texas House, which in turn was run by a speaker (Gib Lewis of Fort Worth, 1983-93) from the party's conservative faction. Third, Perry's voting record on the House floor placed him in the conservative wing of the conservative faction of the Texas Democratic Party. Fourth, during Perry's short tenure in the House, the space within the Texas Democratic Party for politicians with conservative ideological profiles such as Perry's was rapidly disappearing. In the end, given Perry's conservative ideological position and the evolving nature of partisan politics in Texas, by 1989 Perry had but two choices if he wished to pursue a career as an elected official in Texas: change his political beliefs or change his party. He opted for the latter.

Here is another good read (link). Excerpt follows...

As the Texas Democratic party was slowly taken over by that liberal movement emanating from Austin and increasingly, Houston, millions of conservative Texas Democrats changed parties to remain true to their conservative beliefs. Rather than being cause to question Perry's authenticity, his switch is a testament to the solidity of his conservative principles. As I and so many other Southerners are fond of saying, "We didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Party left us," which is exactly what happened to Rick Perry.

The other thing to remember is that Rick also said he felt Al Gore had "gone to hell" since the 1980s...

I know this "former Democrat" thing must be really baffling for a lot of people outside of Texas... or outside of southern states... but there are still a number of conservative Democrats in the southern states although that number is rapidly dwindling...

If you know anything about Texas politics, you know that former GOP presidential candidate Phil Gramm who is so hated by the left was also a Democrat at one point in his life...

Ronald Reagan was also a Democrat who loved FDR until somewhat late into his life... Rick switched to the Republican side before Texas really switched several years later... in fact everyone thinks of Texas as this GOP bastion for so long, but Republicans still did not control the Texas legislature until 2003...

When I see the stuff about "Al Gore's campaign manager" I usually just tune out the person saying it because they are obviously not very well versed in recent political history... and if I were to come up with a venn diagram of the people who say that line and some of Ron Paul's nuttier conspiracy theorists, it would look like just one circle... it is the exact same people pushing the Al Gore stuff...

Read these things. Ask some Texans not affiliated with Ron Paul and not under the age of about 35 or 40 about the old days in Texas politics and you'll realize... again... ironically that Rick supporting Al Gore was an attempt to prove his conservative bona fides... and having once been a Democrat likely makes him a stronger not weaker candidate...

Rick's masterful entry into the 2012 presidential race...

2011-08-17T12:35:00.000-05:00

Rick's entry into the presidential race was truly amazing. Bachmann's win in Iowa's straw poll was rendered irrelevant. Then Rick schooled Bachmann on her own turf in Waterloo... some are already calling it her "Waterloo" as in her big folly of arrogance that caused her to fall. Politico tells the story (link). Excerpt follows...

But the contrast that may lift Perry and undermine Bachmann in their high stakes battle for Iowa had less to do with what they said than how they said it — and what they did before and after speaking.
Perry arrived early, as did former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum. The Texas governor let a media throng grow and dissolve before working his way across the room to sit at table after table, shake hand after hand, pose for photographs and listen politely to a windy Abraham Lincoln impersonator, paying respect to a state that expects candidates, no matter their fame, to be accessible.
But Bachmann campaigned like a celebrity. And the event highlighted the brittle, presidential-style cocoon that has become her campaign’s signature: a routine of late entries, unexplained absences, quick exits, sharp-elbowed handlers with matching lapel pins, and pre-selected questioners.
She camped out in her bus, parked on the street in front of a nearby Ramada Hotel, until it was time to take the stage. Even after a local official’s introduction, Bachmann was nowhere to be found. It was not until a second staffer assured her that the lighting had been changed and a second introduction piped over the loudspeakers that she entered the former dance hall here. By the time she made her big entrance to bright lights and blaring music, the crowd seemed puzzled.
Bachmann’s stump speech drew mostly polite applause until she closed by giving a large apple pie to “the oldest mother in the room” — a local centenarian.
Then she stayed on stage, signing T-shirts from above, which her staff then distributed to a steady but not overwhelming crowd.
Finally, she swept through what was by then an empty ballroom behind a phalanx of six aides who shielded her from reporters and the handful of Iowans who remained.
“She kept us waiting, she was not here mixing — then she was talking about what a great evening it was. How do you know? You just got here,” said Karen Vanderkrol, of Hudson, Iowa, who said she agreed with the substance of Bachmann’s speech, but that one line in particular rang false: “I am a real person.”
“She can say she’s real and part of the people, but that’s not what we do,” Vanderkrol said of the congresswoman’s behavior.
Several other attendees seemed to leave similarly disappointed.

Ouch for Bachmann... Bachmann spent all of that money and put in all of that work almost for nothing...

Perry's peeps put out this masterful video which is exactly the right tone and tenor... not too overboard like Tim Pawlenty's videos, but not boring either... just very well done...

Then Rick seemed to stick his foot in his mouth by criticizing Ben Bernanke extremely strongly... but my hunch is that this Bernanke moment is a big parallel to the secession stuff.

On both issues, Rick never said what people want to believe he said... he certainly never advocated for secession and never said Bernanke was treasonous... but the impact is still there... Rick is scoring major points with voters for speaking bluntly on an issue they agree with... that Bernanke is a bad fed chairman and the fed is printing too much money...

Then Ed Schultz took Rick's comments about debt being a black cloud not just out of context but just plain lied about what Rick meant by "black cloud." Insinuating racism, MSNBC threatened to dominate the news all week before I am sure Obama's peeps forced Ed Schultz to apologize to make it go away so they could get back to attacking Rick unfairly in other ways (link)...

These unfair criticisms of Rick have caused peeps to rally to his defense... even peeps who don't support him necessarily yet...

On the economy, the MSM and liberal bloggers are failing to assail the unassailable... and speaking of peeps who don't even support Rick... even bloggers supporting other candidates have come to the defense of the Texas miracle... for example Political Math... the guy who did those videos with the pennies I think... has this detailed blog about how the left is not being truthful about Texas while Rick is being modest if anything (link)...

My advice to anti-Perry advocates is this: Give up talking about Texas jobs. Texas is an incredible outlier among the states when it comes to jobs. Not only are they creating them, they're creating ones with higher wages.

What has all of this wrought so far? Rasmussen has Rick winning by double digits (link)... which should trouble all the other candidates yes... but I would be troubled by these numbers if I am Rick's peeps... if it gets down to a single digit race next week then suddenly Rick has stalled and lost momentum and all of that... and people like to pounce when a candidate slips a little in the polls... and the press will try to blame his Bernanke comments or the fact that more peeps have gotten to see the "real" Rick... which is all pretty shoddy and unfair but that is how it goes... even if a different pollster with completely different methodology comes out and shows Rick down by 5 points or 7 points the story might be that Rick is fading already which would not likely be true...

It is interesting to see Rick be attacked from almost every side... some on the right are fringing themselves by suggesting Rick is some kind of pro shariah candidate or that miracle vaccines are suddenly bad (link)... all while the left works itself into a tizzy about Rick being a Dominionist crazy right winger who hates science and progress... they need to get their stories straight because the stories do not match up...

Really I think Rick has seized Romney's inevitability from him... and seized Bachmann's thunder from her... the next big event will be the September 7 debate... in the meantime Rick has less than a few weeks to hone his message and raise a ton of money... If Rick can post a solid fundraising number at the end of this quarter while withstanding unfair attacks from all sides he probably solidifies support and cruises to a victory in the caucuses and primaries.

He may not be perfect to all GOP voters, but he is as close as it gets to the vast majority of them. You want a strong social conservative who is pro life and pro 2nd amendment? Check, check and check. You want a strong fiscal conservative with a strong record on job growth and keeping spending, debt, and taxes in check? Check, check, check, and check. You want a national security conservative who may be wary of some of our adventures but certainly is not suicidal or isolationist... check and check...

Rick has all the check boxes covered... he looks the part... he gives one hell of a speech... he is a fighter which is what voters want... he drives Obama and his cadre of peeps insane...

Rick has entered the race masterfully thus far... although I do believe he can perfect his stump speech and not have to read off the page... and I do believe he will have to have a much more extensive online operation out there fighting misinformation from all sides and promoting his side of the story.

Is it just me, or has the MSM already gone a little crazy over the possibility of Rick running?

2011-08-11T06:33:00.000-05:00

They've already lost their marbles. Prepare for this to get even uglier as it becomes obvious that Obama is unelectable due to the economy and Rick with all of those amazing Texas job creation statistics is the best person to take the message of economic renewal to the people.

The MSM hyperbole over Rick may actually be the death knell for their credibility and relevance once and for all... Rick dealt with the same thing in Texas and basically ran around them rather than through them.. marginalizing the media in Texas in a big way... he won big... can he replicate the same strategy at the national level? It will be a lot more difficult, but Rick will have more online allies than McCain had in 2008 if he can win the nomination...

Kay's peeps trying to exact revenge for their shameful primary loss?

2011-08-10T10:23:00.002-05:00

Jennifer Sarver who worked on Kay's failed 2010 campaign against Rick has some words of advice on how to communicate in a campaign...

Now Sarver has turned her attention to attacking Rick's higher education reforms (link)... which has raised the ire of Rick's allies... Peggy Venable of the influential Americans for Prosperity posted about Jennifer...

Jennifer Sarver is chair of the Texas Exes Public Relations Committee and spokeswoman for the Texas Coalition for Excellence in Higher Education...and she is trashing Vedder and higher education reformers? Sounds like she needs a little schooling and UT needs some new public relations help.

It isn't just Jennifer Sarver. It is several former Kay peeps, issuing anti Rick missives... Others have also noted the strangeness of former Kay peeps leading this attack on Rick... it just feels like a personal vendetta at this point instead of a real policy difference of opinion (link). Excerpt follows...

The Coalition for Higher Excellence in Higher Education – a group that supports higher education reform ideas offered by the state’s university presidents and chancellors and has expressed concerns with some higher education reform ideas offered from outside academia – fired a rhetorical howitzer at Gov. Rick Perry yesterday. Political observers in Texas are left wondering why the organization chose to attack Perry by name and how this will play out.
The coalition’s main communications consultants used to work for U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and former president George W. Bush, two elected officials whose political interests have not always aligned perfectly with those of Perry.

[SNIP]

When asked about the statement attacking Perry by name and why it was issued, Shussler replied, “The statement was a response from the Coalition, which includes more than 200 leading Texans, including many supporters of Governor Perry, who are concerned about the negative impact of some of his higher education proposals.”
Some grassroots conservatives are troubled. “I know that Perry’s uncompromising commitment to fiscal and social conservatism doesn’t always sit well with some of the more moderate members of the Republican Party,” said State Republican Executive Committee member Jason Moore, a talk radio talk show host on KWEL in Midland. “But I’m surprised that some of the business leaders who have joined this coalition would condone these kinds of cheap shots at Perry.”
Most of the coalition’s press releases are distributed by Jenifer Sarver, who used to work on Hutchison’s staff. Sarver is chief of staff to Karen Hughes, who used to work for Gov. and later President George W. Bush. Both currently work at the Austin office of Burson-Marsteller.
Willeford said that the Burson-Marsteller firm is a paid consultant to the coalition. “As far as what is put out by the coalition and what is posted on our website, all that goes through our operating committee,” she said.

[SNIP]

But some Republican activists hope that this coalition will avoid messages that might be perceived as political attacks. “I sure hope that this coalition doesn’t allow former staffers for Hutchison and Bush to use the organization to attack Perry personally by name or harm his presidential chances in any way,” said Toby Marie Walker, a tea party activist in Waco, Texas. “Given the problems President Obama has created for our nation, the stakes are too high for that.”

More recently, pork barrel queen Kay seemed to take a swipe at Rick basically saying she basically has no plans to endorse him... saying it in a very petty and spiteful way which is the norm for Kay these days (link).

What a nightmare this whole thing must be for Kay... not only was she supposed to cruise to an easy victory over Rick she ended up losing by 20 something points... and now he is intrade's most likely candidate to be the Republican nominee surpassing Mitt Romney on that betting market (link).

For the peeps who are already putting slogans about Rick being 4 more years of Bush on bumper stickers... remember that Karen Hughes was also among Bush's big 3... Rick and W. seem to get along well personally but there is a huge chasm in the camps of the two candidates... with ironically... Rick the former Democrat being the more principled and conservative of the two... and hiring more conservative peeps around him as well as which matters tremendously when it comes to policy making...

More than two years ago Rick made an obvious joke about Texans wanting to leave the union... it is newsworthy now?

2011-08-10T08:57:00.000-05:00

Texans are a very independent group... and Rick has still never advocated for secession... but something that was posted and seen by many tens of thousands of people more than two years ago online has popped up again as new news in the media's drive to sensationalistically "vet" Rick (link). Excerpt follows...

well-known tech blogger Robert Scoble told The Texas Tribune on Tuesday that he remembers the meeting with Perry in the governor’s office in 2009. It's clear from interviews, blogs and Twitter postings that the remarks were recorded nearly a month before the April Tea Party gathering, which helped launch Perry’s successful 2010 re-election effort.
In the meeting, Perry can be heard speaking to the group of tech bloggers about the founding of Texas in 1836. A slideshow shows Perry pointing to a painting of the dramatic fall of the Alamo, artifacts in his office and the “Come and Take It” logo on his own boots.
Texans have a “different feeling about independence,” Perry told the group.
“When we came into the nation in 1845, we were a republic, we were a stand-alone nation,” the governor can be heard saying. “And one of the deals was, we can leave anytime we want. So we’re kind of thinking about that again.”
The bloggers erupted in laughter after the remarks, and the slideshow was posted under the headline “Texas Governor Rick Perry jokes about Texas leaving the United States.”

One of the tech bloggers from California I believe... perhaps Robert Scoble himself... in the recording even suggested that he would move to Texas if it became its own country... amid the robust laughter...

Heck you can buy "SECEDE" t-shirts and bumper on the drunkest part of 6th Street in Austin. For Texans it has nothing to do with George Wallace or the Deep South type of thinking and everything to do with our state's unique history... Texas was its own country at one point you see... with its own president... and its own ambassadors to other nations... and Texas is the only state to enter the United States via treaty rather than annexation...

...And given that Texas provides a disproportionate amount of jobs, tax dollars, military servicemen, oil, NFL football players, and other exports to the rest of the nation, sometimes it seems like Texas could still be its own country... and taking away the prospect of a violent Civil War Texas very well might be a lot better off as an independent nation with a continued strong affiliation with but independence from the rest of America... for Texans and non Texans the whole "secede" thing is sort of a larger than life mythology based in actual history... it is a shirt that tourists buy because they think it is funny... and a harmless line bloggers loudly laugh about because it is funny...

In the end Rick still never advocated secession... which actually irritates some of the more hard core secessionist peeps who wanted him to just sign an executive order making it happen... Ron Paul did advocate secession though... in a video defending Rick, Ron Paul went all in on secession. Ron Paul correctly tells the camera that Rick didn't call for secession... but then Ron Paul goes on to say how Texas can and likely should secede and how it is an important Constitutional principle and check on government in favor of liberty...

I guess it says a lot about the viability of the respective candidates that Ron Paul actually calling for secession isn't newsworthy while Rick obviously joking about others wanting secession gets the headlines... yet if Ron Paul places in the top few in Iowa's straw poll this Saturday will they start "vetting" him or do they just not even know how to handle him? I wouldn't likely vote for Ron Paul for president in a primary, and especially not this year, but I could see quite a lot of unfair, cliched and lazy media "vetting" if he were to become a top tier candidate with a strong finish as the polls currently show he will have... you have to wonder if Ron Paul actually talking up secession would be part of that?

Wow... some epic and not to epic videos in support of Rick... all from outside groups...

2011-08-09T09:41:00.000-05:00

This one is from Students 4 Perry and it is the most compelling and on message...

"IT'S TIME FOR RICK PERRY"

This one is from Vets for Perry and is good enough I guess... it featured veteran and Texas lawmaker Jerry Patterson talking up Rick... the Veterans for Perry have a couple of other videos too promoting Rick's record as a veteran...

"Jerry Patterson: a Veteran for Rick Perry"

Time for Rick Perry is okay... seems a little off somehow actually with some of this random b roll... also their use of the speech and clips of the crowd are out of sync and just awkward...

"It's Time for Perry"

This one is apparently actually on television in Iowa on Fox News...

"What if? Rick Perry for President 2012"

There are new videos popping up every couple of days it seems... and now... with the Response day or prayer and fasting going well (link) and Rick possibly declaring in South Carolina at the RedState.com convention (link)... or maybe just declaring to declare... maybe we will see some David Weeks productions with Rick actually in them actually speaking to the American people in his own voice...

Everything you ever need to know about Rick...

2011-08-05T13:18:00.001-05:00

Matthew Dowd who by all accounts doesn't know Rick very well but is well known for his Bush involvement wrote a thing I have seen called "everything you need to know about Rick Perry."

Okay so what is it he has to say (link). Excerpt follows...

Having observed and known the governor, both as a Democrat and as a Republican, through 13 election cycles, I offer a primer on Perry in five key points:
He is an extremely astute politician with a keen sense of where voters are, and he has great instincts on message. Perry has ruthless discipline and communication. They say in politics, “Don’t let your boot off an opponent’s neck till Election Day.” Perry doesn’t take his boot off till a year after the votes have been counted and the opponent has faded into oblivion. He is actually a better campaigner than George W. Bush (Perry’s predecessor as Texas governor) was when he first entered the national scene.
Perry has surrounded himself with a very loyal staff. His aides believe in him, and he in them. He is involved in campaign decisions, but he delegates well and doesn't stop being loyal because a mistake might be made. This is a huge advantage in the ebb and flow of presidential campaigns.

His statements related to possible Texas secession actually helped him in his recent race in 2010, and will help him in a national campaign in the Republican primaries and caucuses. In an environment where Republican voters despise the federal government, anti-Washington rhetoric is music to their ears. Conversely, this talk will hurt him in a general-election race. Moderate voters in the Midwest will see it as off-putting.
Although he has run many times for both district and statewide office in Texas, Perry has never been fully vetted by the media. He underwent some scrutiny in his races for governor, but he has never endured the full-court press that happens in a presidential race. What the media discovers will not be as important as how he and the campaign handle the intense spotlight for the first time. Perry and some of his staffers are known to have thin skins. They will need to grow calluses if they are to succeed in the show.
Perry has never lost a race. While many immediately list this as a positive (and it is laudable and suggests huge talent), losing at some point in your career makes you better when the inevitable problems hit. I have learned more from my losses in life and politics than from my victories. It’s the losses that really cause self-reflection and growth. President Obama and former Presidents Bush (father and son), Clinton, Reagan, and Nixon learned enormous amounts from setbacks in their political careers, and those losses eventually helped them win the White House. We know Perry can win. The real question is: Can he suffer defeat and rise to the next battle?

Umm... really? That is all we need to know about Rick?

I would say that some of these are sort of accurate but could apply to any candidate... and the one about Rick not being vetted? What planet is this guy on? I guess I understand the feeling that Rick will get ambushed on random trivia questions if and when he goes to Iowa or New Hampshire, but Rick is likely the most vetted of all the possible candidates including the current resident of the White House... he is constantly and often unfairly vetted... they make things up... they imagine scenarios... they exaggerate and sensationalize... they cover the same ground again and again... in his various campaigns every accusation has been lobbed at him you could think of... he has been vetted by opposition researchers affiliated with Kay, with Tony Sanchez, with Steve Mostyn, with Chris Bell... everyone has looked into every nook and cranny of Rick's life and finances... there aren't a lot of surprises.

If Dowd means that Rick hasn't faced the press conference gauntlet that is also pretty dubious... although maybe he can make the point that Rick must hone a new national message that he can stay on and not get tripped up... and clarify and tighten some of his 10th Amendment talk for example so he doesn't run into trouble with the pro life peeps and anti gay marriage peeps again... all while still enticing those libertarian kinds of peeps with the federalist argument. Right now some of that is a little unexplained and hard to follow...

As far as the thin skin argument goes I have not noticed that per se with most of them but definitely with some... but no more than any other staffer or consultant or advisor out there for any candidate... if anything Rick has pretty thick skin... especially compared to many of the opponents he has faced... he seems to be able to rattle his opponents more than they rattle him in other words...

One thing about the thin skin argument is that none of his peeps can fire back and say "no we don't" because that proves the point... so I will say it for them... it is not really a unique attribute of Rick or his peeps. Maybe Dowd means that they hold grudges and exact their revenge on peeps who cross them... and who knows maybe there is some of that but again no more than any other political operation out there, and I really don't understand the thin skin argument from my observations over the decades.

If someone set out to write "everything you need to know about Rick" I definitely don't think that would be the authoritative list no offense to Matt Dowd...

Rick within a few points of Obama, and he's not even running yet...

2011-07-21T10:15:00.000-05:00

You may have seen the various polls showing a "generic" Republican beating Barack Obama....

What about real Republicans?

Romney the front runner whom everyone knows at this point in terms of name identification is roughly tied with Obama. Rick who is obviously very well known in Texas but not as much outside of Texas is within striking distance of Obama, and Rick has not even declared his candidacy (link). Excerpt follows...

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that President Obama would enjoy a modest 44% to 39% lead over Texas Governor Rick Perry. Given that choice, 10% would opt for a third-party candidate and eight percent (8%) are not sure.

From the MSM, there is an effort right now to define Rick... as well as Michele Bachmann... as too far right especially on social issues... see the Colbert Report hit piece on Rick and his running mate God... which I guess is "funny" but maybe I am too old to get it.

Still, there is a huge reservoir of undecided voters, and a huge reservoir open in terms of defining Rick. Without even running yet Rick has become the likely anti Romney choice for Republicans... Bachmann may have peaked too soon... we shall see won't we...

I think this has to be very good news for Rick if he is thinking he is going to pull the trigger and run... if he jumps in the race the MSM and not so MSM on the liberal side will try to define him and Texas in the way that Obama would like... but Rick has to stay strong and confident that his record in Texas is unparalleled today in terms of adding new jobs....

Rasmussen explains more and cautions against reading too much into these numbers just yet...

It’s important to note, however, that Romney benefits from being perceived as the frontrunner. In 2004, the last time an incumbent president stood for re-election, Howard Dean was the early Democratic frontrunner and he polled best against George W. Bush. John Kerry was always a few points behind. However, once Kerry became the frontrunner in early 2008, his numbers became as good as Dean’s.

Polls conducted a year-and-a-half before an election provide a snapshot of where things are today but give little indication of what the mood might be on Election Day. If the economy substantially improves before November 2012, President Obama will be heavily favored to win re-election. If the opposite happens and the country endures a double-dip recession, just about any Republican challenger would be favored. If the economy stays as it is today, the race could be very competitive.

A good measure of the president’s re-election prospects is his Job Approval rating among likely voters. His final vote total is likely to be very close to his final Job Approval figures.

Romney leads the polls for the GOP nomination among Republican Primary voters. However, it is far too early for the polls to give a sense of who is likely to emerge as the Republican nominee. In 2008, John McCain never took the lead in a national primary poll until December 31, 2007.

I believe 2012 will be all about the economy. Even if the economy improves a little bit between now and election day... a 50/50 proposition... it won't be enough improvement to win. Of all the possible candidates, Rick can draw the most profound contrast on the economy... especially on job creation...

I think the analysis Rasmussen puts out there is pretty solid... if the economy miraculously fully recovers, which there is almost no chance of... Obama wins easily like last time. If the economy gets worse, no way can Obama win. If the economy stays roughly where it is, or maybe gets slightly worse or slightly better, it will be a close race...

America would have to add hundreds of thousands of jobs every month between now and November of 2012 just to get unemployment down below 8%... I don't see that happening... and despite the downplaying of the living, breathing Texas economic powerhouse by Paul Krugman and Rachel Maddow and those kinds of hacks... Texas factually speaking has created more new jobs than any other state in America by far... second place is not even close... Obama can't touch that.

The issue becomes... Rick will need to hurry to define himself and his own record before the MSM fully defines him as they are trying to do now...

Rick's time as a Democrat... like Reagan's?

2011-07-15T14:29:00.000-05:00

It is interesting what people get interested in at the same time...

The New York Times... actually the Texas Tribune... seemed to get interested in this story about Rick being a Democrat back in the 1980s at the exact moment TIME magazine got interested in it...

First the Texas Tribune version (link)...

Gov. Rick Perry, a no-apologies conservative known for slashing government spending and opposing all tax increases, is about as Republican as you can get.

But that wasn’t always the case.

Perry spent his first six years in politics as a Democrat, in a somewhat forgotten history that is sure to be revived and scrutinized by Republican opponents if he decides to run for president.

A raging liberal he was not. Elected to represent a slice of rural West Texas in the state House of Representatives in 1984, Perry, a young rancher and cotton farmer, gained an early reputation as a fiscal conservative. He was one of a handful of freshman “pit bulls,” so named because they sat in the lower pit of the House Appropriations Committee, where they fought to keep spending low.

[SNIP]

The liberal Texas Observer called Perry the “Benedict Arnold of the Democratic Party” for siding too often with Clements, the Republican governor, and not enough with his Democratic colleagues.

This is obviously not news to readers of Rick vs. Kay... we covered this issue ad nauseum during the primary when both Kay and 9/11 Truther Debra Medina tried to use it against Rick. The problem there is that that attack was just so divorced from reality. Not only was Ronald Reagan once a Democrat, but the idea that Rick was insufficiently conservative because he was once a Democrat would get you laughed off the stage in Texas. Most Republican activists today remember just twenty years ago, when there was almost no such thing as a Republican, and the ones we did have in office were not always conservative enough for the grassroots... which is why conservative Democrats hung around for as long as they did. In fact, 2010 might have been the final gasp of air for conservative Democrats in Texas. They all either were defeated or switched parties to the Republican side. The only Democrats left now are liberals.

TIME magazine also did a profile on Rick's time as a Democrat, calling it his inconvenient truth because of his support for then-centrist Al Gore over liberals in the race (link). Excerpt follows...

The tale begins in 1984, four years before Perry took the helm of Gore's Texas campaign, when Gore, then 36 and a congressional wunderkind from Tennessee, followed in his father's footsteps by winning a U.S. Senate seat. That same year, Perry, who was 34 and from much humbler roots as the son of a Texas Rolling Plains cotton farmer, won a seat in the Texas house of representatives. Both young men were handsome sons of the South and proudly touted their philosophical bearings in the regionally dominant conservative wing of the Democratic Party.

In 1988, seizing on the opportunity afforded by a lineup of southern primaries on Super Tuesday, Gore announced his bid for the Democratic nomination for President. Ronald Reagan's second term was drawing to a close, and Republicans were set to nominate the next in line, then Vice President George H.W. Bush. The Democratic field was wide open, with a raft of candidates to the left of Gore, who was dubbed the "southern centrist" by the press. The young Senator, described by the New York Times as "solidly built, dark and indisputably handsome," lined up a list of conservative Democratic big-name supporters, including Senators Howard Heflin of Alabama, Terry Sanford of North Carolina, Bennett Johnson of Louisiana and Sam Nunn of Georgia and Governors Jim Hunt of North Carolina and Buddy Roemer of Louisiana. (In 1991 Roemer, like Perry, left the Democratic Party for the GOP; he is now also reportedly considering a Republican presidential run.)

Gore shared the views of his fellow southern centrists — he opposed the federal funding of abortion, supported a moment of silence in schools for prayer, approved funding of the Nicaraguan contras and was against the ban on interstate handgun sales. It was a platform a conservative West Texas Democrat like state representative Perry could stand on, and he signed up to chair the Senator's Texas campaign.

Several more-liberal state Democratic Party leaders cast their lots with two of the other candidates, Missouri Congressman Dick Gephardt and Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis. But Gore worked the Texas legislative ranks for support, winning the backing of Texas House Speaker Gib Lewis and Lieut. Governor Bill Hobby. Lewis was especially important to appointing legislators to vital positions on fiscal committees. And so it was not surprising that 27 members of the Texas legislature, including Perry, a young two-term legislator, joined the duo in their support for Gore.

Both of these are pretty good and fair reads, although they may leave out some key details and add some details that are a bit overblown. You should probably read both of them if you want to carry on an intelligent conversation about old Texas politics and Rick's place in them... these are certainly better done than many of the hysterical things I have read in recent months written by people who have no idea what they are talking about but feel like they have found some scoop so they rush to tell the world "HEY DID YOU REALIZE RICK PERRY WAS A DEMOCRAT OH MY GOSH STOP THE PRESSES THE WORLD MAY END!"

Paul Burka, for all his nonsense lately, wrote a pretty good blog called "Dear Yankee" with several dos and don'ts for non Texans trying to write about Texas and - or Rick... and his number two bullet point is about the former Democrat thing (link). Excerpt follows...

2. It’s not a big deal that Perry was once a Democrat. To suggest otherwise will make you look foolish. When Perry was elected to the statehouse, in 1985, conservative Democrats ran the Legislature. In 1989, realizing that a conservative had little future in the party, Perry switched to the GOP. He has been a rock-solid Republican ever since and has driven the state party further to the right.

Texas truly is a pretty unique place, so sometimes our history doesn't translate in the context of say New York history or Massachusetts history... but Burka is right on this one... and not just about the media... other presidential candidates will look foolish if they try to point and say "Rick was once a Dem, we can't trust him!" My hunch is that most of them will be smart enough not to serve up that soft ball for Rick and instead may subtly use it behind the scenes, but even then... it is not a liability... and it only makes the mystique of Rick's unabashed conservatism more attractive and intriguing. So far, I see it mostly coming from the Ron Paul peeps, very loudly and repeatedly, but not very effectively.

I will say that Rick switched to the Republican side at an earlier point in his life than President Ronald Reagan switched to the Republican side as I have been reminded by Rick supporters... if asked in a debate or in a big national interview, Rick probably can't call himself the next Reagan, but he could sure hint at it... because that's who we're all looking for... the next Reagan.

Finally I would leave you with this blog from the American Thinker on Rick's journey from Democrat to Republican back in the 1980s (link). Excerpt follows...

In the articles, blog posts and their attending comments being posted here at American Thinker and at other websites about the possibility of Texas governor, Rick Perry entering the presidential race, there seems to be some question as to Perry's authenticity as a conservative and Republican because he was once a Democrat and was Al Gore's Texas campaign manager in 1988.

As someone who lived almost thirty years in Texas, perhaps I can clarify the issue. The Democratic Party that controlled Texas for 150 years was more conservative than half the current Republican Party nationwide. Just a few decades back, everyone in Texas was a Democrat. I was raised a Democrat and married into a long-time, Yellow-dog Democratic family in West Texas. We were all conservatives except for a couple of rebellious hippie types residing in Austin, which at that time was becoming the liberal capital of the South.

As the Texas Democratic party was slowly taken over by that liberal movement emanating from Austin and increasingly, Houston, millions of conservative Texas Democrats changed parties to remain true to their conservative beliefs. Rather than being cause to question Perry's authenticity, his switch is a testament to the solidity of his conservative principles. As I and so many other Southerners are fond of saying, "We didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Party left us," which is exactly what happened to Rick Perry.

By the way, the Democrat who beat out Al Gore for the candidacy in that primary was a Massachusetts liberal, Michael Dukakis. Another primary candidate was Jesse Jackson. Gore, from Tennessee, and Dick Gephardt from Missouri were considered the conservatives in that primary race.

Too many Americans forget that Al Gore hasn't always been the flaming liberal he is now. Gore was the scion of an old Southern family, son of a U.S. Senator who once advocated using nuclear weapons to end the Korean War. While more liberal than most Southern Democrats, Gore's father was conservative enough to refuse to support the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Like his party, he gradually became more liberal, too much so for his conservative Tennessee constituents, who booted him out of office in 1970 and handed political power to the Republican Party for the first time since Reconstruction.

So Al Gore was a product of a liberalizing Democratic party in that 1988 primary, but he was still more conservative than all the other candidates except Gephardt. By campaigning for Al Gore in 1988, Rick Perry was not betraying his conservative principles, he was, like so many of us, simply a product of the changing political times, another Southern Democrat slowly awakening to the fact that he was being abandoned by his increasingly liberal party. It is noteworthy that it was the very next year after he campaigned for Gore that Perry changed party affiliation.

I can see how being around Al could do that to you...

I do hope to see Rick on stage answering this question, because I really feel like he could both knock it out of the park with independents and moderates, and reassure the hard core base of the GOP, in one fell swoop. If anything, Rick's background gives him a special connection to those rural or formerly rural peeps in places like Iowa, Ohio, North Carolina, and Indiana, won by Obama... Rick can relate to them. He can relate to former Democrats or "Reagan Democrats" who also aren't really Democrats anymore but may not be so sure about those fat cat Republicans either...

Bush Peeps vs. Rick Peeps? A Feud? Overblown?

2011-07-11T10:21:00.002-05:00

Douglas MacKinnon sez the Rick vs. Bush thing is way overblown (link). Excerpt follows...

MacKinnon: Don't believe the anonymous chatter about a Perry-Bush feud

For all of those trying to make that into something it's not, I've got some news for you. Most Republicans, conservatives, independents and Americans who are paying attention could care less. Ultimately they just want to know two things: Is Perry going to run, and if he is, does he represent the adult leadership the voters are so desperately seeking?

What does bother people are anonymous quotes from cowardly political aides who operate from the shadows and make not so thinly veiled threats. That New York Times story showcased two of them. The first "warned Mr. Perry against establishing his own conservative bona fides by criticizing Mr. Bush, saying, ‘If you're really trying to be the nominee and want to go the distance, you just don't want the former president of the United States and his people working against you.' "

The second chimed in with, "He's going to need all the help he can get from all the Republicans he can muster, so he ought to be prudent about that."

A few things about those anonymous threats. First, do these "close associates" of Bush really mean to say that if Perry does happen to have an honest difference of opinion on policy, that he's not allowed to voice it? Ever? Second, that if Perry does vocalize a difference, then Bush's "people" are going to work against him? What's that mean, exactly? Back another Republican? Donate to the Obama campaign? Hold their breath until they turn blue? What?

I agree with a lot of this. Blood got a little boiling at times between a camps during the 2010 race. Remember, my whole thing was that I had great friends on both sides of the Rick vs. Kay divide. A lot of those Kay peeps were Bush peeps, but a lot of those Rick peeps were also Bush peeps, something often overlooked by people trying to drive a certain agenda.

I will say though that Karen Hughes does seem like she is cruising for a bruising (link). No matter how often I have seen her praise Rick and his campaign when she speaks at luncheons and gatherings, she still does seem to end up on the other side from Rick on many important and hotly debated issues. For example, Rick and his conservative allies are trying to shake up colleges and universities and tame the explosion of costs and the bubble forming in higher education ... Karen Hughes' public relations shop is meanwhile issuing press releases trashing Rick and the efforts of the reform minded think tanks on behalf of the UT administration... one wonders how many taxpayer dollars are being spent trashing reform and rallying around the status quo but I digress...

Even on this issue... it doesn't feel like something that will kill relations between Bush peeps and Rick peeps. Karen Hughes is just one person. Karl Rove who was also a Kay person is on television regularly pimping Rick as a great communicator, great fundraiser, a smart and savvy politician, and all of that...

Don't forget also when Bush's campaign manager Joe Allbaugh endorsed Rick over Kay... and many other staffers worked for both Bush and Rick... there are a lot of examples of the Bush team being with Rick, but the examples of them not seem to dominate the headlines.

Rick has some policy differences from George W. Bush. No Child Left Behind was a signature piece of legislation for Bush. Rick hated it because it expanded federal power and dumped costs and mandates onto Texas and other states... Bush never or rarely used his veto pen to the point of allowing a lot of spending... Rick has vetoed many billions in spending and line item vetoed a lot as well. Rick is generally more conservative than Bush on some issues... but that doesn't mean they don't get along or that Bush's peeps... other than maybe Karen Hughes on ed reform... are going to actively work against Rick....

Rick will obviously get questions about Bush if he hits the campaign trail. Rick will need to distance himself from some of the policies of Bush... and if pointing out substantive policy differences antagonizes the anonymous Bush peeps who feel the Bush legacy is their legacy... well... they are just being petty.

Strangely enough Rick mostly benefits from the perception that there are two distinct camps and Rick's camp is different and disliked by the Bush camp... yes Bush's reputation is rapidly being rehabilitated especially when people remember that the "terrible jobless Bush economy" had an unemployment rate of 5.2% on average while Obama's "recovery" is planted firmly above 9%... still... Bush still gets blamed by a lot of Americans for the economic situation we are in right now. Rick has the economy going his way but he may have some difficulty convincing peeps that a man from Texas has the solutions due to the Bush baggage... that is just a reality... and the reality is that Rick is reportedly going to call Bush for advice on running for president... they are friends in that professional sense... and I think they both realize the legacies and histories will be written later... and in the meantime politics sometimes requires distancing yourself a little bit from your friends...

2012 watch... Rick beats Michele Bachmann among teapartiers....

2011-06-28T11:06:00.000-05:00

Rick recently dominated a Freedom Works Straw Poll of tea party peeps (link). Excerpt follows...

Washington

First, a disclaimer: The poll was completely unscientific. Some 160 tea partyers from around the country had gathered at the Washington headquarters of FreedomWorks, a conservative group that trains tea partyers in political organizing and advocacy. With reporters watching, the assembled activists were asked for a show of hands on the Republican presidential candidates.

The winner: Texas Gov. Rick Perry. He isn’t a candidate yet, and it’s not certain he ever will be. But Governor Perry’s “victory” is just one small indication that, were he to run, Perry would start with the goodwill of the GOP’s most energetic wing.

Texas Tribune boss Evan Smith tweeted a hint to Michele Bachmann's peeps about a story in the Texas Tribune about Rick's allegedly controversial views on things...

Maybe some wishful thinking by Evan Smith, no fan of Rick's, or maybe he just wants conflict because conflict gets more eye balls on his website...

Jay Root wrote up a story on Rick's book and some of the things he wrote in it (link). Excerpt follows...

Months before liberal Congressman Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts, teamed up with Republican U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, to back an effort to de-criminalize marijuana, Perry was making essentially the same point in his book, writing that Washington has greatly overstepped its bounds by making pot use a federal crime.

“It ought not be the federal government’s job telling them they can’t do it,” Perry said in that November interview. “I totally and completely disagree with the concept of legalizing marijuana, but it ought to be California’s decision.”

Perry has made the same argument about same-sex marriage. He’s against gay marriage himself — reflecting the conservative state he represents — but he has argued in favor of allowing each state to decide for itself what its policy will be.

“If you don’t support the death penalty and citizens packing a pistol, don’t come to Texas,” Perry says. “If you don’t like medical marijuana and gay marriage, don’t move to California.”

....

Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia and veteran presidential campaign analyst, said the 2012 GOP primary is a good forum for Perry to be putting forth edgy proposals. Tea party enthusiasts are demanding that politicians shake up Washington and enact deep spending cuts.

“I don’t think he has a thing to worry about on these items in the Republican primary. There are a lot of cross currents that will protect him,” Sabato said. “So many of them have unorthodox positions. It’s a choose your poison type of election year for Republicans.”

I don't know that these positions are even very controversial... most Americans oppose gay marriage but probably don't mind if some other state allows it... most Americans don't smoke marijuana or want it legal near them, but they don't care if California makes it legal... if you believe in states having rights, you have to take the good with the bad I guess...

Rick's positions on entitlements being a ponzi scheme are spot on as well.... and will only help in 2012... Rick is ahead of his time maybe but controversial seems to be an overused word by the msm.... they declare it controversial therefore it is... technically anything is controversial if you have more than one side on the issue... even mom and apple pie are controversial because you could always find people to support and oppose anything...

Cal Jillson officially jumps the shark... "you can't run for president bashing the national government"

2011-06-13T09:46:00.000-05:00

SMU political science professor Cal Jillson came up with this doozie in an article about whether Rick might run for president (link). Excerpt follows..

"So much of what made him successful in Texas has been his bashing the national government," Jillson said. "And you can't run for president bashing the national government."

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm................

I don't know if Rick is running or thinking of running or anything like that, but the winner of the 2012 election will absolutely be the most effective basher of national government.

The other thing that is so funny about Jillson's comment is Rick was constantly questioned by "experts" just like Jillson about why his gubernatorial campaign was so focused on Washington... because surely he had some ulterior presidential motive behind it... why else would he ever talk about Washington... no Texas campaign would ever do that... it doesn't make sense, and it remains to be seen whether it will work in Texas.

Now it is the opposite? Professors in general, not just Jillson, may have jumped the shark with this comment.

Is Rick running?

2011-06-02T11:51:00.000-05:00

It sure seems like Rick may be suddenly thinking about running... and why wouldn't he?

ECONOMY AND JOBS

Texas has the best economy in America, with more jobs and more prosperity than any other state. Other people are more knowledgable about this than I am, but the contrast between Texas and Illinois or Texas and the rest of the country is pretty startling... and if jobs and the economy are a big issue how could you not pick the governor with the absolute best track record of any in the nation...

FISCAL ISSUES

Rick was one of the only peeps against bailouts back when bailouts were the coolest thing in the world... Rick will be the only candidate who can say he has actually cut spending... and that he has done it more than once... Rick was against ethanol mandates from the beginning which conventional wisdom says makes winning Iowa more difficult but my belief is that Iowa Republicans will respect someone who is principled and doesn't pander on something that has obviously failed. Rick has been strong for a balanced budget amendment, which I think would be a popular campaign plank in a run for president...

BORDER SECURITY AND IMMIGRATION

Rick seems to have found a very good formula on immigration and border security. He appeals to Hispanics because his rhetoric is not caustic, and he doesn't call for drastic measures that seem more like racism or discrimination. On the other hand, he is one of the most hawkish elected officials out there when it comes to securing the border itself and criticizing the federal government for their failure on the issue. While Rick might not win the more jingoistic "they took our jobs" crowd in some place like Iowa, he appeals to the vast majority of reasonable voters with his tough on border security but not angry at Mexicans views.

NATIONAL SECURITY AND FOREIGN POLICY

He is one of the only possible candidates with actual military experience having served in the Air Force for several years in the 1970s... flying missions all over the world. Rick has visited Iraq and Afghanistan many times and seems to be a rock star with the military rank and file, not to mention Israel, China, Europe, and other places in an official capacity. Rick also seems to have found a happy medium between the "neocon rethuglican" pro-war all the time caricature and the crazy pacifist anti-war peacenik caricature of peeps like Ron Paul or Howard Dean... from what I gather Rick supports the idea of the war on terror, supported going into Afghanistan and Iraq, but thinks it's now time to extricate America as best we can from those theaters and rethink the way we fight our battles... in a smarter way that keeps our homeland secure but also doesn't sacrifice our brave young men unnecessarily... It will be hard to call him just another Bush on foreign policy, but he's also not as irresponsible as the Ron Paul isolationist bent...

Bottom line is that Rick probably has more foreign policy experience as a sitting governor than the current president has after more than two years as the actual president... and Rick definitely has more experience and credibility on military issues and national security than almost any other Republican in the race...

SOCIAL ISSUES

There may not be a more pro life governor in the history of this country than Rick. There may only be a handful of more pro second amendment governors ever. Rick has the social issues locked down, but interestingly he has framed his philosophy in a way that says to the socially moderate or socially liberal Republicans that he is for states deciding these issues instead of the federal government... still... nobody will mistake Rick's faith... he has cultivated a rabid following at mega churches around Texas, and when he preaches at these churches, he clearly knows the Bible and is not just pandering or awkwardly giving a prepared speech... he is a social conservative in his heart... despite being accurately described as libertarian leaning as well... his philosophy may be contradictory for some, but it is the sweet spot of the Republican Party...

TEA PARTIES

How many candidates went to tea parties in April 2009? Not many prominent ones. In fact most prominent politicians sneered at the notion. Rick embraced the tea party movement from the earliest days. He is a favorite among conservative activists, online right wing bloggers, and precinct chairman type people, and others. Rick knows how the tea parties work. He wouldn't ever pander to them or try to control them the way some candidates do... but he would be the candidate with the most tea party support the instant he got into the race.

FUNDRAISING

Rick is from Texas. He has been the Republican Governors Association finance chairman and is now the overall chairman... he knows how to raise money. His campaign raised a lot of money online in 2010. He has proven he can raise a lot of money in one day... although federal limits may make it a lot more difficult since he has always raised money in Texas without limits...

CAMPAIGNING

Rick is a great campaigner. He embraces social networking and online media. He is made for television with his tan skin and full head of hair... like the Marlboro man image he has held since twenty years ago when he first started getting into politics... many who have seen him in action know that he is disciplined unlike almost any other candidate... he gets up early and doesn't get off message... he trusts his army to fight his battles, and he does what he needs to do without driving his staff about minutiae crazy like many politicians...

PERSONAL STORY

Rick has a great personal story. He would be the least privileged president in American history in terms of his upbringing. His house did not have running water for a good part of his childhood, from what I have read in the past. He literally had an outhouse for a long time. His mother sewed his clothes and even underwear until he went into the military. He was not rich... he did not live in Indonesia and attend a Muslim school... he grew up in Paint Creek, Texas and fought for his success the hard way. He knows how to ride a horse. He knows how to fly a plane. He knows how to shoot a gun. He runs. He rides bikes... and rides the other kind of bikes... he shoots coyotes and loves his dog... Rick is the kind of exciting candidate that Republican primary voters can get a tingle up their leg about... and his personal story appeals to middle class Americans in middle America... plus Hispanics and others who also may have grown up without privilege... Rick was an Eagle Scout... he is definitely the picture of the fifties kid who grew up and avoided the hippie dippie drug scene and opted for the straight laced pro America scene throughout the sixties and seventies...

Plus Rick has been extremely well vetted in his personal life... and his personal life despite some salacious rumors that have popped up and been shot down is pretty boring... he married his high school sweetheart... has two young adult kids... he has so many schedulers and handlers and peeps around him that if he had gone off to "hike the Appalachian Trail" I think we would all know about it by now... juicy things like that do not stay secret over the course of tough campaigns year after year after year against candidates with crazy amounts of money for opposition research...

CONTRA

Does Rick have detractors? Has Rick been governor long enough that he has pissed some people off on some little issue? Of course... and unlike say Romneycare or Pawlenty's support for ethanol and other liberal ideas or Herman Cain's support for bailouts, none of Rick's so called mistakes are deal killers for reasonable people.

The biggest downsides to Rick are pretty miniscule. He supported allowing girls to be vaccinated against HPV, which causes cervical cancer. He overturned himself before that ever actually happened, after he saw the public outcry over the issue. The knock is that he wanted to personally inject little girls with a dangerous STD drug, but that is silly. People would have been able to easily opt out under his plan... but again, he saw the public reaction and killed the plan before it ever took effect.

Another one is on the fringe of conspiracy theories... they call him a Bilderberger because he spoke at a conference along with dozens of other major politicians of both parties. When Rick has been asked about it in public, he usually makes it sound like he went in, gave a speech, shook a few hands, and left... and that the whole thing was pretty unremarkable. When I see someone bring up Bilderberg, I automatically dismiss them as a kook, and so should you. Maybe Bilderberg has some secret society aspects to it, but it seems pretty clear Rick is not even in their club.

The other one is the Trans Texas Corridor... which is perhaps the most visionary idea in transportation since the interstate highway system... imagine if I told you that there are private companies willing to build new transportation infrastructure, including roads, trains, and utilities, and do it on their own dime. Obviously they need something in exchange... and that is usually tolls and fares on roads and trains, respectively. Plus, they obviously have to be able to buy the land along the right of way using eminent domain. Meanwhile, the government would still build non toll roads and expand and maintain existing highways so people have "free" options.

There is nothing unconservative about transportation privatization, but people objected to it being a "land grab" (as if government-built roads don't use land) or that it was a foreign company (it was a San Antonio based company with a Spanish partner)... or they just didn't like the idea of roads not being "free" (government-built roads cost more taxpayer dollars and take longer to build). The best part of Rick's plan was that it would take these many many billions of dollars from the private infrastructure companies and give that over to the state to expand and maintain "free" roads like I-35. As it is, Texas can't afford to build new roads or repair and maintain existing roads into the future. We don't get enough of our own highway dollars back from the federal government. We have too many people moving here, yet gas tax revenue is both declining and being eroded by inflation... either you are for privatization of some new construction projects or you are for higher taxes... either you are for private companies playing a role in building roads, or you are for not having new roads. The case for the TTC is solid. The criticisms are almost always misguided. Rick has gone out of his way to push eminent domain reform to prevent abuse of private property rights. I think there will just always be a very vocal sub set of peeps who oppose toll roads and view "freedom" as being able to drive without paying the costs associated with driving on safe, efficient roadways. Like the HPV vaccine, the TTC is dead anyway, so it's not even a real issue.

Other knocks on Rick are that he endorsed Rudy Giuliani in 2008, and Rudy was not conservative enough... Rick's rationale was that he could beat Hillary Clinton, which was true at the time. The press try to knock his job creation funds like the Texas Enterprise Fund and the Emerging Technology Fund as being slush funds for rewarding friends and supporters, but no matter how many articles they write, people still like the idea that Texas can entice businesses and close the deal with tax breaks for moving here. Creating jobs and attracting businesses from other states is hard to knock. Otherwise, being called Governor "Good Hair" is not actually a negative in the way that liberals use it. Being in office too long is another knock, but that's not really a knock when you're an outsider running against Washington... and you are new to most peeps. Other things I have heard are that he worked for Al Gore in the 1980s back when Al Gore was the conservative choice in the Democratic Party... and remember that being a Republican in Texas before about 1990 didn't mean you were conservative, just as being a Democrat in Texas back then didn't mean you were liberal. Texas was basically a one party state with liberal Democrats and conservative Democrats. Rick was always a conservative Democrat. If anything, I think having been a Democrat way back when but having a conversion helps Rick. It helps him in the Ronald Reagan or Phil Gramm comparison... both former Democrats and future Republican heroes. It helps him with the millions of voters out there who understand exactly where Rick is coming from. It's not about party, it's about principles.

Another so called problem that usually ends up being a positive is the "secession" stuff. Rick never actually used the word secede. Nor did he advocate for it... he in fact said we had a good union and that he sees no reason to dissolve it. Still, the Rachel Maddows of the world casually throw out that "Rick is a secessionist" line with such regularity that many may think it is actually true. If asked, the secession comment actually allows Rick to talk about his strongest points... that people are fed up with the federal government's one size fits all mandates on the states...

The other big knock is what people are calling Rick's "Bush Problem." Others might call it Bush Fatigue. Rick is from Texas. Ironically, the Bush team may snipe and undermine his efforts because they don't like Rick, all while the anti Bush peeps will bash Rick for being another George W. Bush. Rick can't win on that, and the Bush and Texas handicap might set him back. That being said, Rick can overcome that by distancing himself from George W. Bush on a few key issues and showing that Texas is the most bustling economy in the country under his tenure.

THE ONLY HOPE

Whether Rick ultimately runs or not, he may very well be the only hope to win in 2012. Obama is strong but vulnerable, especially on the economy. In terms of the primary, who other than Rick unites all the various portions of the Republican electoral coalition? Who brings fiscal conservatives, tea party peeps, traditional conservatives, social conservatives, midwest conservatives, national security conservatives, and the rest all together? Rick excites crowds in Manhattan and California, just as much as he excites crowds in Abilene and Tyler, Texas.

I support the movement to draft Rick into the race. I think... contrary to conventional wisdom... that Rick has the luxury of waiting a few more months to make his move. He has a platform as RGA Chairman... he is traveling around the country for that... he has plenty of exposure in the media but not too much exposure... Rick can play the wait and see game a few more months before making a move, but if he is even just considering getting in, he may want to continue talking like he may get in, in order to scare away the money and committed support from other candidates.

Could one of the declared candidates win? Of course they could. Republicans will rally around our guy to defeat Obama regardless of who it is... but unless Rick thinks Obama is unbeatable in 2012 and instead has his eye on 2016, why not flirt with the "Draft Rick" movement a little bit until you make your final decision?

If Rick runs, I think he may exceed expectations yet again after being underestimated... can he ride that all the way to the White House? It will be tough, but he may be our only hope.

New blog on the scene... the race to replace Kay...

2011-04-15T08:57:00.000-05:00

This new blog called Replacing Kay Bailey is not my doing although it looks a lot like Rick vs. Kay design wise...

http://replacingkaybailey.blogspot.com/

Interesting... the senate race will get heated in the coming months I predict... and it doesn't really matter who the Democrats put up in 2012... the winner of the Republican primary will be the winner of the general election...

The logic then becomes which candidate is the most conservative and can send the biggest message to Washington... right now the grassroots heat seems to be with Michael Williams and Ted Cruz... with Roger Williams maybe a bit lagging behind those two...

Tom Leppert's run thus far as been fraught with problems but he has a lot of wealthy associates he can tap for donations... Elizabeth Ames Jones had a state wide tour nobody showed up to but she may be able to raise some money who knows...

The rumor mill is also saying that Dewhurst may just be comfortable as Liet. Governor for now and may run for Rick's spot in 4 years... although if he gets into the senate race he is probably the front runner based on name and money.

Others like Craig James are probably non starters... but he has good name identification and a good amount of money...

It will be interesting to follow along. I think the first quarter FEC reports are somewhat revealing but not really all that much... there are a couple of candidates who can compete with or without money... others will need to raise a lot more than a measly million dollars to be competitive with Dewhurst should he get into the race... I would also caution reading too much into the first quarter numbers since some candidates were pushing raising money the whole time and others weren't... the next quarter will probably get more interesting, and the aggregate of all the quarters will start to add up pretty quickly...

Rick the 2012 frontrunner?

2011-04-08T15:52:00.000-05:00

What?

Among some big name governors Rick is in the lead according to a new poll... (link). Excerpt follows...

The Washington Whispers Poll has discovered a new Republican 2012 contender: Texas Gov. Rick Perry. Considered a very long shot by GOP pundits and political analysts, nearly one in three of those in our poll chose Perry as the sitting governor most suited to challenger President Obama.

By getting 29 percent to choose him, the two-term Perry shows that he could be a force in the upcoming Republican primaries, though it also suggests that voters aren't satisfied with the more established GOP names in the 2012 field.

The poll was also good news for New Jersey Chris Christie and Indiana Sen. Mitch Daniels, Christie won 27 percent, Daniels 22 percent, as the governors ready to run against Obama.

But our Synovate eNation Internet poll was more bad news for Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, who's planning to run for president. As in other polls, Barbour came in last in the Whispers poll, taking just 10 percent. Even little-known South Carolina first-term Gov. Nikki Haley beat him with 12 percent.

Governors are back on top of the Republican presidential heap as voters look for a 2012 nominee. Which sitting governor is best suited to challenge President Obama?

Texas Gov. Rick Perry 29%

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie 27%

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels 22%

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley 12%

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour 10%

Source: The Synovate eNation Internet poll was conducted March 25-29 among 1,000 nationally representative households by global market research firm Synovate.

Are you shocked by this?

I would have thought Barbour was higher... This poll really doesn't include former governors or current Congress men and women... but among current governors Rick gets the highest marks...

Rick standing firm on not tapping the rainy day fund...

2011-03-09T10:10:00.000-06:00

Rick and Grover Norquist had a press conference yesterday to reiterate the importance of keeping the rainy day fund as much intact as possible (link). Excerpt follows...

The state's reserve fund is expected to grow to more than $9 billion by 2013.

"Our rainy-day fund is a very valuable asset," Perry said. "It's like insurance ... against a future that continues to be uncertain."

Perry also said he worries that if lawmakers tap the fund now, they'll avoid addressing fiscal problems that may cause future shortfalls.

"If we use the rainy-day fund, we just kick the can down the road," Perry said.

Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, echoed Perry's remarks and praised the governor's fiscal conservatism. He said Republican gains in the November elections "put a restraining order on Keynesian economics," referring to the school of economics that argues that sometimes it makes sense for the government to increase government spending to boost demand during an economic downturn.

Norquist said he's worried that some states are using current budget woes to ignore that message from voters.

"Texas for the last 10 years has served as an example for other states," Norquist said.

On the other side of the aisle, you have moderate some might say RINO Republicans joining liberal Democrats in calling for most or all of the fund to be used...

If you are one of those new legislators pondering which way to go on this, do you go in the direction of the tea party, Americans for Tax Reform, and Rick... or do you go in the direction of the people who just got stomped in November not to mention primaries last March...

Choices... choices... such tough choices...

Michael Williams wins early straw poll...

2011-03-09T08:30:00.000-06:00

Michael Williams won an online straw poll run by the Dallas County Republican Party... (link).

I also hear from peeps who are in the know in Dallas that Railroad Commissioner Michael Williams really blew the others out of the water... and this was even so when Lt. Governor David Dewhurst was initially in the ballot...

I also think it is interesting that they said they went through the votes and took out duplicates, including some from "family members"... LOL... someone's family member was on there voting multiple times according to Dallas County GOP Chairman Jonathan Neerman...

Michael Williams with his tea party support and grassroots cache is clearly the top candidate of "the rest" who aren't named Dewhurst... Dewhurst is in a pretty weak spot though not even coming near 40% let alone 50% in early polls...

David Dewhurst has many similarities to Kay... both can say they are conservative and point to one thing or another to prove it... both have served for many years and done some very good things... yet both are considered RINO style politicians at the end of the day when you talk to the grassroots about them... both have risen very high and become very wealthy... both are not good at firing up the crowd when giving a speech...

I think David Dewhurst is in an okay position right now in that he can finish this legislative session strong and prove his conservative credentials... but at the same time he has a long record that can be picked apart the same way Kay had a long record that Rick's peeps picked apart... she might say unfairly so... any and every little thing will be scrutinized in a big nasty primary fight...

In some ways I agree with Perry vs. World that Dewhurst may not even run... he may look out and realize he will probably get clobbered for his quirky eccentricities, his enormous wealth... when is Dewhurst going to release his taxes... what is he hiding, his uninspiring rhetorical style, and his less than perfect record with the strong conservative grassroots who dominate Republican primaries... would he really want to deal with all of that and end his political career the same way that Kay did... or does he think his money and strong name identification will overcome all the other candidates... and then overcome the candidate who ends up in a run off with him... does he think his record is truly strong enough... that he can run the same campaign Rick ran in 2010... kind of a "Texas is good, Rick is responsible for that, and if you disagree you must hate Texas...."

As for Tom Leppert... that guy is really having a bad start to his race... I don't really hear from Roger Williams much any more after he went fast and furious two years ago... maybe he is just raising money in private meetings if so that will look good in a few weeks when the numbers come out... Elizabeth Ames Jones had a big tour around the state but nobody bothered to show up and her entire rationale for running seems to be that she is a woman and we need another woman to replace Kay... Ted Cruz is doing a lot of the right things appearing at sizable events almost every night and it will be interesting to see how much money he can raise and whether peeps actually believe someone who has never been elected to anything has earned the trust to go to Washington and be one of two senators from Texas... I think the rumors of Craig James jumping in are fascinating... he is hated by Texas Tech peeps and has some baggage from his SMU days he might not want coming out...

Michael Williams is clearly doing something right if he is winning prominent straw polls but I think he may not hit his stride until he is actually out of the Rail Road Commission and into full time campaign mode...

Endorsements seem to be all over the map... debates are going to be muddled with too many candidates... this race might be won or lost based on nasty negative attacks, opposition research, and gaffes...

Speaking of gaffes... someone may have made a gaffe... Michael Williams' camp seems to think that calling for a Constitutional Convention is an error that will leave our rights vulnerable to ACORN style organizing and whims of the moment... while Dewhurst and Cruz have both spoken out for a Constitutional Convention to re write the document that has served the United States very well for well over 200 years and only been amended a couple dozen times...

I see the point of a Constitutional Convention, because it would allow states to rapidly change the Constitution for the better... but it would also allow them to rapidly change certain other things for the worse... it is not like the normal amendment process, it would streamline things... you could easily see states making deals with other states the way they do in Congress... you scratch my back... I will scratch your back... it is an idea that has never been done in our nation's history with the exception of the first one at the end of the 18th century and the other one that happened at the open of the Civil War in the south...

I would not feel all that comfortable about supporting a Constitutional Convention unless we have a strong and popular Republican president who could guide the public debate... unless the media play it more down the middle some day... and unless we had strong supermajorities of Republicans not just in Congress but running a supermajority of states as well... and even then who knows what people might do... I prefer the slow process even if it does mean we don't get important things added...

Utah senator Mike Lee endorses Ted Cruz...

2011-03-07T13:05:00.000-06:00

Both were former law clerks and both are young... Mike Lee is a new senator from Utah, and he is endorsing his friend Ted Cruz (link). Excerpt follows...

Senator Mike Lee is throwing his support in the Texas US Senate race to Ted Cruz. In this US Senate race, Cruz is up against another Tea Party favorite, Michael Williams.

Lee is one of just four members of the Senate Tea Party Caucus and is already becoming one of the popular republicans in the Senate. He has made a name for himself after defeating establishment incumbent Bob Bennett for the senate seat with the backing of the Tea Party.

There are already a few high profile endorsements in this race from peeps like George H.W. Bush... which don't necessarily mean much to Texas Republican primary voters if recent history is any indication... I think the only endorsement that really did much in the Rick vs. Kay match up was the Palin endorsement of Rick...

Dick Cheney's endorsement of Kay... the Bushes endorsing Kay... Karl Rove and Karen Hughes working for Kay... none of that especially mattered...

Mike Lee is a new senator but he is known for being a tea party guy who took down an establishment incumbent... I think this endorsement might mean more if it were more ideological or philosophical and if the race were more black and white between two prominent politicians rather than just a buddy from a Supreme Court clerkship endorsing another drinking buddy from Washington.

Where is Ron Paul? Where is Jim DeMint?

Where is Rick?

Where is Sarah Palin?

What about Big John Cornyn and Kay?

It will be interesting to see if they stay completely neutral the whole time or if some of these prominent peeps tip off the candidate they support even just subtly...

Rainy Day fund... Rick is against using it... Susan Combs, Jim Pitts are for it...

2011-03-07T08:19:00.003-06:00

Did these peeps not learn anything from the year 2010? Voters actually want cuts to government... tapping the rainy day fund is the easy way out... it may be sprinkling and even raining in Texas, but it's not really storming right now... yet Susan Combs our Comptroller wants to tap the rainy day fund... and so does the budget go to guy in the House Rep Pitts....

Meanwhile Rick is on record opposing using the rainy day fund... whether Rick gets his way or Combs and Pitts get their way, there will still be cuts... and some people will still be upset about those cuts either way... but with Rick's way, we shrink government and preserve the rainy day fund for a real emergency... with Susan Combs' way or Jim Pitts' way we shrink government less and don't exactly preserve the rainy day fund for the future...

Even the liberal Texas Observer sees what is going on here as a fight for what the tea party asked for in the 2010 elections (link). Excerpt follows...

The staunch fiscal folks may not have had such a great day.

Thursday morning, several GOP leaders on the Appropriations Committee pushed for bringing more dollars into the budget, rather than trying to remedy the state's $27 billion shortfall through cuts to state agencies and services. Increased revenue isn't popular with the "Tea Party" philosophy that government spending is largely wasteful. The committee discussion went against the "cuts-only" approach that many hard-line conservatives have promoted, including Gov. Rick Perry.

[SNIP]

But with one of the most conservative Texas Legislatures in recent memory, featuring a two-thirds Republican majority in the House, many expected hard-line social and fiscal policies: anti-abortion bills along side efforts to cut government programs, for instance. Bu while the social conservative bills are moving forward at quite a clip, there's clearly a softer stance on such fiscal policies. The budget cuts will undoubtedly be widespread and painful, but at least a vocal GOP contingent is working to minimize some of them.

I'm not sure that's exactly what the Tea Party had in mind.

It seems like a pretty easy choice to me... keep hands off the rainy day fund, cut spending, and let's roll... be fiscal conservatives or risk backsliding into parity with Democrats...

Tom Leppert off to a terrible start...

2011-02-28T13:14:00.002-06:00

Tom Leppert is having a rough start to his senate campaign...

Who?

Tom Leppert...

You know... Tom Leppert...

Helped lead Washington Mutual (link) when they went under and had to be bought out by J.P. Morgan Chase.... bailouts anyone?

Dallas Mayor who allowed his team to give Michael Vick the key to the city over Super Bowl weekend...

Been in gay pride parades over the years (link)... now says he is for a Biblical definition of marriage...

Dallas taxes went up while he was mayor... now says he is a fiscal conservative who wants Washington out of our lives... sounds like he is just copying what worked for Rick in 2010...

Oversaw a period of stagnation in Dallas even while the rest of the state's urban areas are booming (link)....

Under his leadership Republicans did well everywhere around the state in November 2010... except Dallas...

Yeah... That Tom Leppert...

His announcement went terribly this week... you have peeps like Tom Pauken openly mocking Tom Leppert for being a RINO... you have the Dallas blogs mocking Tom Leppert for being a flip flopper on gay rights (link)... you have an abortion of a video he put out... it looks nice but it is way too long (link)... and way too sappy and boring (link)... and way too cliched...

Biggest loser in this... other than Tom Leppert? Roger Williams, whose possible Dallas constituency overlaps most with Tom Leppert's.

Does the Texas Tribune hate David Dewhurst?

2011-02-23T08:41:00.001-06:00

First they hint that his health care plans are like Obamacare (link)... now they basically call him the early frontrunner who is very beatable and in a vulnerable position (link)...

Dewhurst, who has not yet declared that he will run, has the support of 27 percent of those polled, and no other Republican broke into double digits. Five other named candidates — Railroad CommissionersMichael Williams (5 percent) and Elizabeth Ames Jones (3 percent), U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul (4 percent), former Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz (3 percent) and former Texas Secretary of State Roger Williams (2 percent) — were clustered in low single digits. Undecided grabbed the biggest share of the Republican vote: 52 percent.

"It's good news for everybody," says pollster Daron Shaw, a government professor at UT. "If it's Dewhurst, he's ahead. For everybody else, the good news is that no one has become the clear alternative, and 52 percent of the voters are still undecided.

"Not any of these candidates has locked down the kind of support they need to win a Republican primary," he says.

If I were running for senate, I would want to be named "Don't Know" right about now. That guy is winning going away. Actually, I think Roger Williams and Elizabeth Ames Jones are peaking... I just don't see them gaining a lot of traction... Michael Williams has a lot of room to grow. I think Ted Cruz may grow as well based on the efforts I have seen so far... Michael McCaul may very well run but I don't know any inside story there... he has a lot of money... actually a lot of these candidates have a lot of money... especially Dewhurst who has a lot of soft support simply because he is a high profile statewide official people associate with Rick... as if he is Rick's VP...

Speaking of Rick, his approval looks okay, but possibly a little lower than I would have anticipated... either that or this poll is not very accurate which would not be so surprising...

Perry gets good marks from 39 percent, bad marks from 40 percent (25 percent strongly disapproving) and neutral ratings from 17 percent. The state Legislature's numbers are milder, but similar: 32 percent approving, 35 percent disapproving (15 percent strongly), and 27 percent are neutral.

What this race looks like to me is the Republican Full Employment Act....

If you are unemployed just get on one of these campaigns...

I have also heard scuttlebutt from basically peeps on every campaign... "our internals show us doing really well..."

Yeah... sure..

I can see that being the case for Michael Williams, and maybe even Ted Cruz... because everyone I talk to is a supporter of one of those two it seems like... especially Michael... but I really don't see some of the others winning more than a few accidental percentage points that you get just for being among the choices...

I can also see a true Republican primary poll... sampling peeps who actually vote in these things... having some of the more conservative grassroots favorites higher...

Now that being said if Texas is still in play at the national level in 2012 for the presidency you could quickly see this becoming less of an insider decision among a small number of Republicans and becoming more of a wide open free for all among non typical GOP voters... and if Rick has been faking us out all this time and really does run for president... something I highly doubt would happen... it would change... everything... all of that is very unlikely though...

Dewcristcare in Texas?

2011-02-21T09:23:00.001-06:00

The Texas Tribune is not doing David Dewhurst any favors with this line (link)...

It's not Obamacare, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst said Wednesday of new state health care legislation, virtually ensuring comparisons.

Dewhurst unveiled the two new health care bills with state Sen. Jane Nelson, R-Flower Mound, the bills' author, at a press conference Wednesday. The legislation will encourage doctors and hospitals to work together to "improve medical outcomes by incentivizing doctors and hospitals to use best practices and focus on wellness and prevention, rather than the number of procedures they perform," Dewhurst said.

Specific provisions in the two bills include the establishment of a statewide doctor-payment system based on improving patient care quality and finding efficiencies. Another provision would reduce Medicaid payments to doctors when patients are readmitted for preventable illnesses.

And without prompting, notes the Austin American-Statesman, the lieutenant governor was sure to add that the bills were the "furthest thing" from President Barack Obama's federal health care reform.

But comparisons revealed some similarities. Both the state bills and federal law make reference to programs looking to reduce "potentially preventable admissions." And federal reform references "Accountable Care Organizations," which are effectively medical homes that manage patients' primary care, similar to the "Health Care Collaboratives" mentioned in the state legislation, the Tribune's Emily Ramshaw noted.

How significant is the overlap? Republican Rep. Lois Kolkhorst, chairwoman of the House Public Health Committee, told the Statesman that the federal law included some "good ideas."

And Garnet Coleman, D-Houston, said, "At some point in time, there is a consensus on stuff."

The big difference is that there is no individual mandate to buy health insurance... but Dewhurst saying "it's not Obamacare" did seem to raise red flags in the same way that a teenage girl putting about a gallon of makeup on a blemish and then preemptively announcing to the world that it's not a zit it is just a scratch from her dog. O...kay...

Self conscious much?

Dewhurst now needs to make sure this becomes law so any concerns about it being like Obamacare can be soothed because people will see for their own eyes it is very very different... if it fails other candidates can say he tried to push Dewcristcare but thankfully failed and leave it at that...

amazon.com, Rick, and Susan Combs... who is right?

2011-02-16T08:24:00.001-06:00

I see points on both sides, but it looks an awfully lot like Susan Combs is trying to almost unilaterally tax the internet... I think Rick makes the winning political argument... jobs and lower taxes (link). Excerpt follows...

Gov. Rick Perry, R-Texas, told The Examiner in an exclusive interview that Amazon's decision to leave the state was a result of a wrong decision by the state comptroller, and that he will work with legislators to make sure Amazon can stay.

"That is a problem and I would suggest to you that we need to look at that decision that our comptroller made," he said. "The comptroller made that decision independently. I would tell you from my perspective that's not the decision I would have made."

Amazon announced that it would close its Texas distribution center, citing "an unfavorable regulatory climate" due to the comptroller's attempts to collect sales taxes. Perry noted that the Amazon distribution center was a warehouse without a storefront. "You couldn't go in and buy anything out of that store, and that, historically, has been the way we defined whether you pay taxes or not -- if you had a storefront. This obviously didn't have a store front. It was specifically there to manage products that need to be shipped out."

But State Comptroller Susan Combs believes that Amazon is responsible for sales taxes not collected on online sales in the state. Last year, her office demanded $269 million in uncollected sales taxes from the company, and the case is pending before the Sate Office of Administrative Hearings.

"We don't want to be onerous on tax policy where businesses and I would say I'm having a hard time getting my hands around this one," Perry continued. "The good news is that the legislature is in town for our bianual session. Hopefully someone will be able to craft some legislation -- and actually do it -- before Amazon walks out the door. Texas should be a bastion for businesses not one where they're sitting there going 'we'd rather go over to go to Oklahoma where we could get a better deal.'"

"Texas doesn't need to make itself less competitive with its tax decisions."

Susan Combs might run against Greg Abbott for Lt. Governor. I think this hurts her chances at that...

CPAC... and Ted Cruz is Canadian?

2011-02-15T07:10:00.001-06:00

Yes the rumors are true... yes I went to CPAC under cover... and yes I observed candidates... or didn't observe them as it were...

Michael Williams and Ted Cruz were around a lot, but neither one worked the conference as hard or in as organized a fashion as he should have... Ted did seem like he was trying really hard at times without his hard work bearing much fruit... he often seemed stuck in long conversations with one person while Michael worked rooms and saw lots of people along the way... and seemed to be in a lot more camera phone pictures with peeps than Ted Cruz...

Which made this article in Human Events (link) extremely puzzling... hat tip to South Steps (link)...

Ted Cruz got his campaign manager to pull in a favor from his previous job to get some water carried. Something had to be done about the perception that the internet exclusively loves Michael Williams. That explains the expensive banner ads for Cruz that are everywhere.

From what I observed at CPAC Michael Williams was a crowd favorite when walking through the corridors... if only because he is black but probably because he has headlined CPAC and other similar national events in past years... Ted Cruz really kind of blended in more than a candidate for one of the most important open senate races in the country should... that's what I witnessed...

I think Ted Cruz is probably doing all the right things. I think Michael Williams probably is doing the right things too... I don't really know because so much of it is behind the scenes... I could probably live with either one as senator... although the more I look at their actual records the more clear differences emerge...

I didn't see any evidence that Roger Williams actually made it to CPAC... was I looking in the wrong places... maybe... but he was nowhere to be found.

I started doing a little research into the candidates, and Ted Cruz is a like-able enough guy but he sort of has some of the Ivy Leaguer baggage in some ways... and he is thin on the actual work resume for a big deal like United States senator... and in doing my web searches... strangely in the research it looks like someone probably on Michael McCaul's team or maybe Dan Branch's... assiduously posted on every story and every article about Ted Cruz back in early 2009 when it looked like they might clash for attorney general that Ted Cruz was born in Canada. Calgary, it looks like... because his parents were in the oil business...

Who can blame Ted Cruz for being born in a beautiful place like that?

Calgary is like Austin but instead of hills they have the most beautiful mountains in the world in the background... and it is cold for 7 or 8 months out of the year instead of 90 or more degrees 7 or 8 months out of the year... if anything Calgary is probably more conservative than Austin... just saying... Austin is pretty liberal eh...

Still... being born in Canada... is that a bad thing? It's not like he says "hoser" but it does preclude him from ever being president... which is one thing I have seen out there aboot why Ted should win... because he is a rising star and could be president in 15 years or so... well... sorry... he can't be... he wasn't born here, and that doesn't make me a birther...

There's even a really terrible website that bashes Ted Cruz but might actually spark a backlash because it is so over the top... http://canadacruz.blogspot.com/

They call him Raffy Cruz and try to post blogs in a cheeky way but the humor is lacking and it just comes off as sort of spiteful and petty... not a fan at all the way I am a fan of the South Steps... which everyone in Texas politics should really at least a couple times a week... and the Canada Cruz page... go ahead and block it from your browser because it is absolutely diarrhea. Ted Cruz grew up in America and is an American citizen...

So to recap...

Michael Williams and Ted Cruz both worked CPAC the way you might expect... both probably could have been more disciplined at it... both got good blogger buzz and press out of it... Ted had a built in edge because he was on stage MC-ing part of the day... which was big big exposure that Michael Williams did not receive... Michael Williams seemed to make the most of his time however even eclipsing Ted Cruz... although Human Events oddly declared what I viewed as the second place guy by a long shot the actual winner of the two...

Which to me just means that Ted Cruz gave Human Events an interview and maybe were snubbed by Michael Williams if even just inadvertently? Or maybe Ted Cruz used those debating skills he honed in college and just really makes a convincing case out of very little actual experience to peeps who don't really know any better...

Michael Williams also needs to work on his elevator pitch a little bit... Ted Cruz has apparently been working on his for a long time because his is really good albeit embellished... Michael Williams is quick on his feet, but he needs to have a better speech he gives in 90 seconds about what sets him apart... that will also help for fundraising calls... which if they are not on the phone for an hour every day fundraising right now they are doing it all wrong... Michael Williams won't win on likeability alone, or being quick on his feet... he needs to tell a narrative... he needs to start taking control of his story...

Roger Williams who also has very limited experience in reality must have been working the back rooms for money and maybe that angle will pay off but no bloggers or activists saw Roger at all... money will end up being a big deal this quarter and the next... if peeps can't begin to raise serious money by the middle of this year they might be sunk... the absolute make or break quarter will be the second to last of 2011... money needs to be in the bank by then or candidates will be dropping out...

Ron Paul is not running for senate that we know of... but he probably is running for president again... his peeps were really annoying to be around... it was like they hated being there and hated everything and everyone around them... but they were the loudest peeps there...

I usually asked peeps if they had feelings about Elizabeth Ames Jones, David Dewhurst, Craig James, Debra Medina, and the others... and usually people had no idea who those people were, or they somehow associated Jones with Kay... one out of state blogger said... oh yeah she was Kay's chief of staff for a long time, right?

No...

People also had heard the phrase "Dewcrist" in reaction to David Dewhurst but seemed skeptical that "Rick's running mate" could be as much of a RINO as Charlie Crist...

Umm... no... Lite Guv in Texas runs independently... it's not a running mate situation...

Woah... that's weird... you guys do everything differently in Texas don't you?

Not really... a lot of states do it that way.

So in other words people were pretty grossly ignorant about Texas politics which is pretty amazing considering how big we are and how influential we are nationally...

Kay thinks the blogs are depressing....

2011-01-28T08:47:00.002-06:00

Do you read On the South Steps? It is a lot better than Rick vs. Kay... much funnier and just as informative... and he is a better writer... probably younger than I am so he has more energy and humor than this old cynical hack...

I like it for Texas knowledge.

You should too... I think he's a Rick insider, but what business do I have speculating on that after all the hilarious speculation about my identity... for the last time I am not Ted Delisi... lol...

I read over there at South Steps about Kay's admission that she reads blogs (link). Excerpt follows...

In explaining herself and her loss in the primary, she made a mistake. She gave credence to blogs, saying

“I read the blogs and it’s sort of depressing.”

Why empower people like me by insinuating that we have any sort of credibility or clout when it comes to elected officials? It makes us produce more content with even harsher words for those we talk about. KBH has admitted that she reads blogs. In a time when most state and federal offices still print morning clips from major daily newspapers, this admission suggests that she takes extra time out of her day to peruse obscure blogs and that the only thing she heard about online is that she’s a liberal who should garner no votes in a contest versus Perry.

Even long after the campaign, I had Kay staffers using their official federal computers to leave nasty comments here about how they are going to find out who I am and take me down... her dream team of non Texan staffers were too worried about blogs and not worried enough about the bailout queen's penchant for defending her spending... what was it she said... her earmarking should be "celebrated by all Texans"... what an out of touch thing to say... meanwhile Rick and his peeps basically couldn't stray from the bailout broken record... and it worked for them... every day was another earmark or bailout video from Rick's peeps... while Kay tried painting Rick in 30 different negative lights... some of which were actually positives for Rick... see secession and tea party enthusiasm videos they tried using against him for a good example of that...

Kay was out of touch and she remains out of touch... thankfully for her sake she is not running for senate again...

Would Dewhurst be vulnerable against John Sharp?

2011-01-18T19:34:00.007-06:00

Perry vs. World links to the hated PPP poll with some interesting results (link). Excerpt follows...

PPP polled Texas this week. Jan 14th to 16th, 892 voters, 3.3% +/- sampling error

David Dewhurst 50

Chet Edwards 31

David Dewhurst 49

John Sharp 49

Julian Castro 25

David Dewhurst 53

Elizabeth Ames Jones 44

Chet Edwards 31

Elizabeth Ames Jones 44

Chet Edwards 30

Elizabeth Ames Jones 48

Julian Castro 25

Michael Williams 42

Chet Edwards 31

Michael Williams 42

John Sharp 30

Michael Williams 45

Castro 26

Is there a concern about David Dewhurst's electability? I wouldn't have imagined it but it is possible... Michael Williams demolishes John Sharp...

Any thoughts on what my new blog should be called? I am going to cover the senate race a little bit until I can work through it and figure out which one I support... it's really wide open right now since nobody has bashed anyone else over the head just yet... I want to see what dirt everyone has on everyone else...

Kay is not running in 2012, let the games begin...

2011-01-14T07:47:00.000-06:00

I may turn this blog into a senate primary race blog... I don't have a dog in the fight, but I do like most of the candidates in their own ways... I think David Dewhurst may be a front runner with all of his money and his strong record leading the Texas senate but I am not sure he connects with the grassroots very well... Michael Williams is a fan favorite of a lot of people in the blog o sphere and in the conservative game, but he has not been able to raise a lot of money... Roger Williams can raise money, and his last name probably will cut into Michael Williams' support... Elizabeth Ames Jones is a great gal but I am not sure she is ready for prime time... Ted Cruz is rumored to be throwing his name into the hat... and his situation is intriguing although I am not sure he has the gravitas that some of the other electeds have... which could be a good thing if he can capitalize on the outsider tea party thing... Debra Medina is a rumored candidate and she will have some heft because of her relatively strong showing against Rick and Kay... there are plenty of others rumored to be running... Joe Barton... Greg Abbott... but I don't see them making that move... who knows though right... There are others I am sure I am forgetting right now off the top of my head. It seems like the whole world is running... and they may end up facing someone like John Sharp on the other side...

My advice to candidates. Own the base. Own online and social marketing. Own your own image. Be visible. Show that you are credible. Don't do anything RINO peeps do... don't do anything stupid... and define all the others as RINOs disconnected from the base, lacking credibility, and not being ready for prime time. Easy right? As I said... let the games begin...

Rick's approval high heading into session...

2011-01-10T12:55:00.000-06:00

Rick has some of his highest poll numbers he has had in years of polling... while Kay continues to feel serious lag from her primary contest nearly a year ago...

The poll is good news for those who want a conservative agenda without some of the more anti immigrant rhetoric we have seen in other states (link). Excerpt follows...

Republican Gov. Rick Perry enters the 2011 legislative session more popular than he's been in years but not so popular that Texans want him to run for president, according to a new poll commissioned by the American-Statesman and other newspapers.

U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, meanwhile, could be vulnerable to defeat in the Republican primary if she runs for re-election next year.

Perry posted his highest job approval rate — 51 percent — and his lowest disapproval rate — 30 percent — in five years, pollster Mickey Blum said.

About half the voters in the state think Texas is headed in the right direction.

"People think Perry's doing the right thing," Blum said.

I have some problems with the poll but I won't go into them. Maybe you can spot some of those problems if I just blog the results...

Poll questions, results

Editor's note: The poll has a total sample of 819 respondents, whose total results are designated by the "Texas adults" heading in the poll questions below. A total of 716 were registered voters designated by the "Registered voters" header. The total sample has a +/- 3.4 margin of error and the registered voters has a +/- 3.7 margin of error.

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Rick Perry is doing as Governor?

	Texas adults	Registered voters
Approve	50%	51%
Disapprove	29%	30%
Not sure	20%	16%
Refuse	2%	3%

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Kay Bailey Hutchison is doing as Senator?

	Texas adults	Registered voters
Approve	44%	46%
Disapprove	24%	26%
Not sure	27%	25%
Refuse	5%	3%

Do you think Texas Gov. Rick Perry should or should not run for President in two years?

	Texas adults	Registered voters
Should	24%	24%
Should not	61%	63%
Not sure	14%	12%
Refuse	1%	2%

Do you think it is fair to voters for a lawmaker in their district to switch parties right after an election or don't you think so?

	Texas adults	Registered voters
Yes, fair	17%	17%
No, not fair	70%	72%
Not sure	11%	10%
Refuse	2%	2%

Did you vote for Rick Perry, Bill White, or someone else if you voted in the recent November 2010 General Election for Governor?

	Registered voters
Perry	36%
White	24%
Someone else	---
Not eligible to vote	3%
Something came up	11%
Chose not to vote	14%
Not sure	5%
Refuse	8%

In politics today, do you usually think of yourself as a Republican, a Democrat, an Independent, or something else?

	Registered voters
Republican	29%
Democrat	26%
Independent leaning Republican	16%
Independent leaning Democrat	5%
Strictly Independent	17%
Something else	1%
Not sure	3%
Refuse	4%

Good video from National Journal about the EPA versus Texas showdown

2011-01-05T12:47:00.000-06:00

How did Rick dominate his elections?

2011-01-04T12:54:00.000-06:00

Mark P. Jones at Rice University tells the story (link). Excerpt follows...

How Perry dominated his re-election races

Governor won another term with anti-Washington theme, well-honed media tactics

Perry's re-election and his current "presidential timber" status resulted from the use of a set of bold and unwavering campaign messages along with a campaign strategy that disregarded many traditional campaign practices.

Understanding Perry's 2010 gubernatorial campaign is of considerable value for two principal reasons. First, the campaign was quite successful, with Perry handily defeating both U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, an early favorite, in the March Republican primary and Democrat Bill White in the November general election.

Second, the 2010 Perry campaign provides a possible rough blueprint of what we might expect a Perry campaign for the 2012 Republican Party presidential nomination to look like.

Jones doesn't really explain what he means by well honed media tactics except to say that Rick didn't meet with editorial boards and all of that... but he sort of left out the part where Rick did no direct mail or paid calls as well... and he didn't really say what Rick did do other than the Home Headquarter network... I get the feeling like Jones didn't closely observe the tactics, rather he just read about the strategy. The strategy was basically the messaging + "let's do online and grassroots instead of offline and elites." The tactics were a lot more nuanced and impressive. Day to day, Rick and his team won almost every day in the primary and the general alike. The only days I can remember them not winning were related to national coverage of the Willingham case, that disastrous chicken suit day, and maybe the time when Kay's peeps cut that video of Rick basically sticking to his consistent campaign to make it look like Rick was callous and didn't know there was a recession... also there were a couple of really strong body blows from the print media that skewed all kinds of things and stretched stories to paint Rick in a bad light... there may have been a few other bad days, but generally Rick's team won day after day. Each editorial board victory for Kay or Bill White was actually a victory for Rick...

In terms of tactics, Rick just won almost every day with social networking and the like...

On the messaging, Jones gets it absolutely right. It was a simple Texas versus Washington message.

I just wrote a whole long thing on the speakers race...

2011-01-04T10:39:00.000-06:00

Somehow it got deleted... but basically my point of the thousand words or more I wrote was that Straus basically has the speakers race in hand, but it is not over and I am not ready to declare it as being over just yet... the anti Straus folks have a lot going for them, although the Straus team has probably done absolutely everything it can to astroturf... and I use that phrase admiringly... they have done a really good job at making it seem like there is a real online grassroots calling for Straus...

I also said that Straus has a chance to have a really good session and give his supporters cover... if he has a conservative session and passes key things then the primary opposition from the tea party dissipates...

I spent a good 45 minutes writing that blog which was far more developed than this one so to see it just get zapped makes me pretty angry at blogger... and makes me want to take another vacation where I have been since Christmas...

Rick wins Texan of the Year... from his nemesis the Dallas Morning News...

2010-12-25T11:15:00.000-06:00

Rick takes first place in the Dallas newspaper's Texan of the Year ranking (link). Excerpt follows...

"A Texan (or Texans) who has had uncommon impact; who exemplifies Texas traits of trailblazing, independence and staring down adversity; and who has affected or influenced lives.

"Recognition is for impact – positive or negative – made over the past year."

THE 2010 FINALISTS

1. Rick Perry: Texas governor still unbeaten

2. Ron Washington: Underdog Texas Rangers manager

3. Kelly Siegler: Prosecutor behind death row exoneration

4. Ed Whitacre: Leader of GM turnaround

5. Border heroes: Volunteers who brave Juárez's violence

6. Greg Hall: Key to Chilean mine rescue

7. Dick Armey: Tea party's master tactician

8. Jennifer Smith: Crusader against distracted driving

9. Amy Chyao: Phenom science student

10. Joel Burns: Fort Worth City Council member

PAST WINNERS

2009: The heroes of Fort Hood

2008: Craig Watkins

2 007: The Illegal Immigrant

2006 : Roy Velez

2005: Houston

2004: Karl Rove

2003: George W. Bush

Look at some of those cop outs they have had in the past... Houston for example...

Do you think Rick knows about this "honor" or even cares?

Prominent Hispanic Republican group praises Rick, bashes Palin...

2010-12-16T07:56:00.000-06:00

Rick has made some friends in the Hispanic Republican community (link). Excerpt follows...

A grass-roots group of Latino Republicans who oppose Arizona-style immigration laws is establishing a foothold in Iowa and wants to influence the GOP's presidential selection process in the 2012 Iowa caucuses.

Somos Republicans, which in Spanish means "We are Republicans," began two years ago in Arizona and claims 6,000 members in 10 states, primarily in the Southwest. The organization has appointed Bob Quasius Sr. of Ankeny, a Republican activist, as director of its fledgling Midwest organization.

"Although we have a small group in Iowa, we are gaining in members and have solidified ourselves with the Hispanic media," said DeeDee Garcia Blase of Scottsdale, Ariz., the founder of Somos Republicans.

The group is already making it clear it won't support Sarah Palin for president because of her endorsement of illegal immigration hard-liner Tom Tancredo in his unsuccessful bid for Colorado governor.

[SNIP]

The group has urged Texas Gov. Rick Perry to run for president because he opposes an Arizona-style immigration law in Texas.

Rick did win at least 38 or 39 percent of the Hispanic vote according to most observers, and if you talk to Rick's peeps they say they have numbers to show he won more like 42 or 43 percent of the Hispanic vote... and closer to 48 or 49% across the state if you take out a few of the most heavily Democratic counties in South Texas and look across the rest of the state where Hispanics are more assimilated into anglo-majority society...

I do think aligning herself with Tom Tancredo was a terrible mistake... he is a bomb thrower for the sake of bomb throwing...

Another clever anti Straus web video...

2010-12-14T07:49:00.003-06:00

Very entertaining from the anti Joe Straus peeps... they have done some good work so far... will it make a difference though? Their task is daunting...

Some interesting comments from some of the new freshmen...

2010-12-13T22:50:00.000-06:00

While I am inclined to say the speakers race is all but over a lot can still happen...

Some of the comments by these Austin area freshman legislators make you kind of wonder how solid Straus' pledges really are... it kind of sounds like some of the peeps who are known supporters of Joe Straus may not really be supporters after all (link). Excerpts follow...

Of the four, three — Charles Schwertner of Georgetown, Paul Workman of Austin and Larry Gonzales of Round Rock — pledged to support Straus, though Workman said he hasn't made a final decision and Gonzales said he is no longer committed to Straus. The other one — Jason Isaac of Dripping Springs — says he hasn't pledged to anyone and is still undecided.

[SNIP]

Workman, who will represent southwestern Travis County, said that although he pledged to Straus before the election, "I have not made a final decision on the speaker's race."

He said that giving Straus his pledge seemed to be the right thing to do at the time but that since then, "some things have come out that I'm not sure are true but that are certainly giving me pause." He declined to elaborate.

In the meantime, said Workman, who defeated Democratic Rep. Valinda Bolton to become the sole Travis County Republican in the House, "I'm just going to lie low and see how it unfolds."

Gonzales, who defeated Democratic Rep. Diana Maldonado , also said he's watching and waiting.

In an interview last week , he said he had not pledged to support any candidate.

However, Gonzales' name appeared on a list of Straus supporters that the speaker released Nov. 3. When asked about that later, Gonzales acknowledged that he had given Straus a "verbal" commitment before the election but said that "today, I am taking the time to consider what is best" for the district.

He said he doesn't anticipate making a decision until "much later." He wants to see who else might get into the race, he said. And he's trying to learn about the case Straus' critics are making.

He said he's hearing from constituents frequently on the speaker's race. So is Isaac, who defeated Democratic Rep. Patrick Rose.

"More often than not, they're telling me to support Paxton," Isaac said.

But Isaac said he hasn't made up his mind and is "not in a hurry to make a decision."

You kind of wonder... if these Austin area Republicans are so on the fence... what about the peeps all around the state especially the very very conservative districts...

Then again the party switching giving the Republicans a super majority really makes you think the race is all but over...

Is Aaron Pena switching parties? Allan Ritter already has switched... Republicans have a super majority now... no excuses...

2010-12-13T18:03:00.000-06:00

Republicans now have a super majority in the Texas House with Allan Ritter's switch (link). Excerpt follows...

State Representative Allan Ritter has confirmed to KFDM News that he's switching from the Democratic to Republican Party and will make an announcement next week in Austin, expected to be attended by Governor Rick Perry and a number of other GOP leaders and colleagues from the legislature.

Who gets credit? Rick maybe gets a little credit... Joe Straus definitely gets some credit... the tea party gets a lot of credit...

I remember one of Kay's speeches during the primary... talking about how she was the best shot at getting Republicans a solid majority in the Texas House... and how under Rick it was a hopeless cause and Democrats would probably take over...

Didn't quite work out that way did it?

Aaron Pena is also potentially switching, but that's not confirmed yet (link). Excerpt follows...

“As a result of the devastation in the general election, where Texas Democrats lost their conservative and much of the moderate wing of their party, I responded to questions posed by the Rio Grande Guardian as to what the future holds for the party.

“That article caused a lot of speculation and the Texas Tribune, in a podcast, and Texas Monthly’s Paul Burka, in a blog, asked questions about my future.

“Although Paul took his post down soon afterwards, it opened up the floodgates and I have received over 50 calls, from Democrats and Republicans alike.

“Many of the Democrats are still thinking the party can be reformed and that perhaps, in a decade, we can be competitive again.

“Many of the calls from Republicans, including lawmakers, were that our community can still have a seat at the table now. Why wait a decade when you can have opportunities now?

“And so, after the large number of calls today and the growing speculation, I can say I am taking the matter under consideration and I will issue a public statement in the coming days, one way or the other.

Michael Quinn Sullivan opined that this means Republicans will have fewer excuses for not accomplishing big things this session... but Sullivan doesn't acknowledge that it probably also means that Straus is the guy... he gets at least some of the credit for party switchers coming to his side (link). Excerpt follows...

For the GOP, the pressure to deliver on conservative initiatives and priorities just got even higher. If the job is left undone come May, expect the Texas electoral tsunami to take out what it brought in. The Republicans will have no one to blame if the job doesn't get done.

If the Republican super-majority can deliver, though, Texas will benefit and the voters will remember.

With Mr. Ritter's welcome switch, the balance of governing power has altogether changed in the state Capitol. Now we see if the GOP has the courage and wherewithal to use this power to lead Texas boldly and effectively.

It does put a lot of pressure on Straus to have a solid conservative session... and he won't have many excuses... it also means he needs to pick conservative committee chairs... this is total domination for Republicans... and total annihilation for Democrats... the surviving Democrats are mostly far left, and the moderates can see what that means for them to be lumped in together with far left Democratic leadership... so they are jumping ship...

The fake polls come out in the speakers race...

2010-12-09T10:24:00.000-06:00

89% of Texas GOP primary voters favor a more conservative speaker (link). Excerpt follows...

DALLAS, Dec. 8, 2010 – In the first round of an ongoing, informal telephone poll, Heritage Alliance found more than 89 percent of registered Republican primary voters in favor of a more conservative Texas House Speaker to lead next year’s session.

In polling that began one week after the November elections, Heritage Alliance surveyed 8,238 “1R” voters—those who had participated in at least one recent GOP primary— in 43 of 99 GOP-held State House districts. (Voters were not polled in 21 districts where the State Representative had already called for a new State House Speaker.)

When asked, “If you want your State Representative to support a true conservative Republican for House Speaker, instead of a moderate Republican, press 1,” more than 89 percent indicated they wanted a more conservative Speaker.

Michael Smith, Executive Vice President of Heritage Alliance, said his organization called only registered voters because, “to quote pollster Scott Rasmussen, it’s the people who vote who ultimately decide everything.

“These are the voters who show up even for the primaries, when 9 out of 10 registered voters stay home,” Smith added. “They pay attention, and they act. Clearly this matters to them.”

Voters who favored a more-conservative House Speaker were given the URL to Heritage Alliance’s advocacy site (www.txvoice.com) and invited to call or e-mail their State Representative directly. In the case of districts where new Representatives take office in January, respondents had the option of calling or e-mailing their Representative-Elect.

Not a real poll in other words...

This also doesn't really tell us almost anything about the actual speakers race...

Tea Party 911 looks to "oust RINO Straus"

2010-12-09T10:02:00.001-06:00

http://www.teaparty911.com/articles/contact_joe_straus_supporters.htm

Interesting...

South Steps...

2010-12-08T09:58:00.000-06:00

A new blog on the scene... http://southsteps.com/

Kay under fire on the DREAM act...

2010-12-08T09:50:00.000-06:00

Kay is having some problems on the DREAM act (link). Excerpt follows...

Hutchison is considered one of a few swing votes Democrats need to pass the measure, which offers a path to legalization for illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children and stayed in school and out of trouble. The newest version of the bill, which addresses many of critics' concerns, could come up for a vote in the House this week, but it's still considered a long shot.

Mostly, the group at the Leland building wanted to let Hutchison, or at least a few of her staffers, see the faces of a few people whose futures depend on the bill's passage.

They didn't get far.

As they approached the tall building with dark reflective windows, an officer with the Department of Homeland Security's Federal Protective Service blocked their path.

"We just got word the office is closed," the officer told the crowd and the scattering of TV cameras and reporters. "You have to call the local number to get an appointment."

This makes me think Kay is running... she was once for the DREAM act as far as I know... but she may be thinking she has to be against it to win a primary in 2012...

Joe Straus didn't answer the Texas Alliance for Life's questionnaire...

2010-12-07T16:04:00.002-06:00

Chisum and Paxton responded, but no response posted from Joe Straus (link). Excerpt follows...

11/30/10 AUSTIN -- On November 15, we hand-delivered surveys to the Capitol offices of the three candidates for Texas House Speaker, a position that is elected by a majority vote of the Texas House on the first day of the next session, Tuesday, January 11.

The survey has 10 short questions on issues important to pro-life Texans, including issues regarding overturning Roe v. Wade, partial-birth abortion, public funding for embryonic stem cell research, and public funding for Planned Parenthood. This is the same survey that was sent to all candidates for Texas Senate and Representatives in the Primary Election and General Election.

To see the responses, click on the name:

Warren Chisum
Ken Paxton
Joe Straus (did not answer)

Shouldn't Straus answer those questions to avoid peeps thinking he isn't pro life... if he is pro life... what does he have to lose... unless he is not pro life...

Rick named the number one Hispanic friendly politician of 2010...

2010-12-07T14:00:00.000-06:00

Rick was named as Hispanic friendly by a group of Hispanic Republicans in Arizona (link). Excerpt follows...

Phoenix, AZ – Somos Republicans would like to congratulate Governor Rick Perry for winning his 2010 gubernatorial election. Our organization is announcing the designation of the Texas Governor as the #1 Hispanic-friendly U.S. politician of the year. Governor Rick Perry has proven his executive leadership as he had to confront the slow economic growth during the great recession much like the rest of the nation; however, Texas’ decline has been milder than the rest of the country. More importantly, when asked about the harsh Arizona anti-immigration law, Governor Rick Perry said such a law “would not be the right direction for Texas” and would distract law enforcement from fighting other crimes.

We believe Governor Perry should be recognized for making a courageous statement with regard to the controversial immigration law during a time in which extreme anti-immigrant messaging has been on the rise. We encourage the rest of the GOP to embrace and emulate such a courageous position.

Very interesting...

Chuck Norris and Rick...

2010-12-07T13:47:00.000-06:00

(link)

I missed this particular picture last week...

Prominent Kay supporter supports Ken Paxton over Joe Straus...

2010-12-07T09:43:00.000-06:00

Denise McNamara who was anti Rick throughout the primary and remained very quiet in the general election is back... and she seems to be on the other side of it this time... Last time she was for the more moderate Kay... this time she is against the more moderate Joe Straus (link). Excerpt follows...

Media types, Democrats, and some Republicans are playing the religion card in the Speaker’s race. This election has nothing to do with religion; it has everything to do with policy. And with leadership.

Speaker Straus did have a Republican majority last session. Yes, it was a slim majority, but he had one nevertheless. That is a fact. Despite that, major legislation, such as Voter ID, was killed under his watch. That is a fact. Democrats chaired too many committees. Another fact.

Each session the Members should choose, from within the GOP Caucus, the most capable and qualified candidate for Speaker. That candidate this time around is Ken Paxton. His resume, professionalism, and competence, as well as his courage, make him the best choice.

Joe Straus had the backing of only 11 Republicans last session (notwithstanding the tradition of unanimous election of the obvious winner); he was not the GOP’s candidate. He should not be their choice this time.

As the speakers race continues it is interesting to see some of the Rick vs. Kay alliances break down... which kind of shows that for some peeps politics is more about personalities and loyalties than issues or principles...

The online battle for speaker...

2010-12-06T14:57:00.000-06:00

This is all so new... it all used to be conducted behind closed doors and at smoke filled rooms around Austin...

New email from the Peter Morrison report...

2010-12-06T11:55:00.000-06:00

Copied and pasted word for word....

Summary of this week's report:

Please send a fax to ask Rep. Larry Taylor, the Chair of the House

Republican Caucus, to call a meeting to select a conservative

Speaker:

http://www.morrisonreport.com/fax_test/index.php?faxID=96

Also, please call Taylor's office at (281) 338-0924 and let him

know that Texas Republicans want a truly conservative speaker

chosen by the Republican majority, not the Democrats.

Full report:

The race to replace liberal, pro-abortion Joe Straus as Texas

Speaker continues. Today, I want to tell you about an opportunity

we may have to enable the cowardly Republican holdouts for Straus

to do the right thing.

The Republicans in the House have an organization called the House

Republican Caucus, which consists of all Republican members and

presumably members-elect. This caucus could meet before the

session begins and choose a Speaker supported by the majority of

Republicans, instead of Joe Straus who was elected by the Democrats

and eleven Republican sellouts.

The caucus can meet and call for a secret ballot for Speaker, which

Straus is likely to lose because members can vote their conscience

without fear of reprisal from Joe Straus and his thugs' unethical

intimidation attempts. However, the only person who can call for a

meeting of the Republican caucus is Rep. Larry Taylor, its

chairman. So far, Taylor has been reluctant to call the meeting.

We may have a real opportunity here, as Taylor was recently

attacked by the liberal media over some frivolous ethics charges

related to how he handled the accounting of his travel expenses.

Taylor's travel expenses as a state representative are reimbursed

by the state (which is reasonable since state reps make only $7200

a year), so to avoid cash flow issues during the delay between the

expenses and reimbursement, he used campaign contributions to pay

for travel expenses and then reimbursed the campaign once the state

reimbursed him. This is perfectly legal and ethical.

However, as we all know, part of the media's propaganda narrative

is that all conservatives are "corrupt" and liberals are virtuous.

Hence, they always play up purported ethics issues with Republicans

while ignoring the outright fraud, vote buying and bribery that is

part and parcel of the Democratic machine (see Charlie Rangel,

Maxine Waters, etc).

Anyway, the Houston Chronicle ran a story a few days ago calling

attention to this accounting issue with Rep. Taylor, and they also

asked Joe Straus his opinion of Taylor's actions. Straus, instead

of defending him, threw Taylor "under the bus" and called for new

ethics regulations. He did not defend his fellow Republican, but

rather took a cheap shot to further enhance his cozy relationship

with the controlled media.

Now that Joe Straus has shown where his true loyalty lies, Rep.

Taylor should feel relieved of any duty to Straus and call the

meeting, especially if pressured to do so by the grassroots.

TAKE ACTION:

Please send a fax to Rep. Taylor asking him to call a meeting to

select a conservative Speaker:

http://www.morrisonreport.com/fax_test/index.php?faxID=96

Also, please call Taylor's office at (281) 338-0924 and let him

know that Texas Republicans want a truly conservative speaker

chosen by the Republican majority, not the Democrats.

The Peter Morrison Report

http://www.PeterMorrisonReport.com

http://www.facebook.com/morrisonreport

Sources:

http://www.empowertexans.com/node/1488

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7313016.html

http://galvestondailynews.com/story/193778

Kay is going to be tea partied...

2010-12-06T09:28:00.001-06:00

There are apparently a lot of peeps ready to challenge Kay if she runs again (link). Excerpt follows...

Only Kay Bailey Hutchison knows whether she'll seek another six-year term in the U.S. Senate.

But Texas' senior senator -- once the most popular Republican in the state in terms of voter support -- has a target on her back if she does run, put there by the increasingly influential and conservative Tea Party grassroots movement.

"She personifies everything that the Tea Party is fighting," said Konni Burton, a member of the Northeast Tarrant Tea Party steering committee. "She is a Republican, but when you check her votes on many issues, they are not ones that conservatives are happy with."

Hutchison hasn't said whether she'll retire or seek re-election in 2012, but several prominent Texans -- including Republicans such as former Secretary of State Roger Williams and Railroad Commissioners Michael Williams and Elizabeth Ames Jones, along with Democratic former Comptroller John Sharp -- have long said they plan to run.

And now there's talk of perhaps a half-dozen or more Tea Party-affiliated candidates joining the race if Hutchison seeks re-election.

Kay's entire campaign against Rick showed the blue print for whatever Republican emerges to challenge her in 2012... or all the Republicans who will challenge her in 2012...

Kay got some really bad advice... she had some staffers who were unable to direct her the right direction either because she didn't listen to them or because they were just bad...

I hope Kay doesn't force the Republican party to spend tens of millions of dollars in 2012 fighting within itself... but at the same time that obviously didn't hurt much in 2010... if anything it might have clarified some issues and energized the base...

Rick's national profile...

2010-12-06T06:38:00.000-06:00

Rick's campaign stump speech in Texas is being tested at the national level now (link). Excerpt follows...

"The timing is right," says University of Houston political scientist Jim Granato. "With the wind of the November elections at his back, Gov. Perry could sustain and even accelerate the (Republicans') current political momentum."

By galvanizing GOP governors, coordinating efforts with ascendant Republicans on Capitol Hill and barnstorming on behalf of his book, Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America from Washington, Perry hopes to foment a rebellion against federal regulation that could trigger the most sweeping devolution of federal powers to the states in decades.

"The governor has a great passion for freeing states from the one-size-fits-all mentality. He firmly believes that if you unleash the states you get good ideas for solving problems — not a magic wand, but good ideas," says Dave Carney, a veteran GOP political consultant and Perry confidante.

In some ways this message sounds like Fred Thompson's message, but I think Rick has a better operation than Fred had in 2008... but I think Rick will actually have more credibility with this message if he truly refuses not to run for president... if he can truly get governors together in a coalition to challenge Obama successfully he may be far more effective at driving the states rights and federalism message than Fred was... or wasn't... in the 2008 presidential race...

Aaron Peña tries to make Democrats in Texas have a come to Jesus moment...

2010-12-05T23:21:00.000-06:00

Yes Democrats these days mostly don't believe in the divinity of Jesus... but Aaron Peña is trying to make his party come to terms with their losses... which he believes are not short term but part of a long walk in the wilderness (link). Excerpt follows...

EDINBURG, Dec. 5 - State Rep. Aaron Peña says the dream that sweeping demographic changes in Texas will somehow come to the rescue of the State Democratic Party is an illusion.

The Edinburg Democrat says a growing percentage of Hispanics are shifting over to the Republican Party in part because his party no longer reflects their values. And, he predicts his party faces decades in the political wilderness in Texas.

“The Democratic Party in Texas has got decades of rebuilding to do. Their dream of demographic salvation is an illusion,” Peña said, in an in-depth interview with the Guardian about his party’s rout at the Nov. 2 general election.

Go read that entire interview.... it is filled with interesting nuggets... Aaron Peña was challenged in a primary for not being liberal enough but he prevailed... he alludes to that... he also alludes to the consultants who run the Democratic party being the main problem. I wonder if he is talking about Matt Angle at all...

One of those robot talking video things for the speakers race...

2010-12-01T14:19:00.000-06:00

Sort of funny... these are all over the place... even in the Geico commercials... these are getting old but they are still funny this week...

The Weekly Standard calls Rick the most successful governor in America...

2010-12-01T09:15:00.000-06:00

Praise for Rick from Fred Barnes (link). Excerpt follows...

The governor whose state has fared the best over the past decade is Rick Perry of Texas, 60, elected to a third term on November 2. The era of Texas as America’s most prosperous and influential state has begun, social critic Joel Kotkin wrote recently, replacing the era of California. It happened on Perry’s watch.

One thing Ryan, Jindal, Rubio, Christie, and Perry have in common is they’re not running for president. I asked Jindal, who’s already announced for reelection as governor of Louisiana in 2011, if he has any intention of seeking the Republican presidential nomination in 2012. He gave a one word answer: “No.”

Barnes seems to take Rick at his unequivocal word that he is not running in 2012...

Texas "insiders" think Rick is running for president...

2010-11-30T14:57:00.000-06:00

These insiders aren't very bright (link). Excerpt follows...

Our insiders believe that Gov. Rick Perry is running for president in 2012 but don't that believe he should.

The latest Texas Weekly/Texas Tribune Inside Intelligence survey found 58 percent think the governor is in the race. But only 22 percent think he should run, while 70 percent say he shouldn't.

And it doesn't appear that many people think Perry is a real contender. In an open-ended question, his name didn't come up that much. Respondents were asked, "What Republican do you think will have the best shot at the White House in two years, and who do you think will win?"

They came back with a lot of Mitt Romney and John Thune and Sarah Palin but not a lot of Perry. Some of the verbatim responses follow; you can see all of the responses here.

• "I think Mitt Romney will ultimately be the nominee for the party but to win in the general the running mate must be strategic. Perhaps a Haley Barbour or John Thune."

• "John Thune will win Republican nomination and White House."

• "If sanity reins in the land, probably Romney, if insanity reins, Palin. Mitch Daniels is also worth watching."

• "Far too early to tell who has the "best" shot, but Rick Perry, John Kasich, and Chris Christie have good shots should they take the plunge. Dr. Condi Rice is an interesting choice for running mate no matter who takes the nomination."

• "It is way too early to have a clue. 2 years ago at this time we were all ushering in the Age of Aquarius as Obama was being carried to the thrown. It is a different world now and will be in 2 more years."

Romney? Really? He may poll the highest right now, but he couldn't even beat John McCain in 2008... I don't see Romney... nor do I see Rick running... I do see John Thune running but not catching fire when I think of the conversations I have had with grassroots peeps who feel like he is too much of a RINO...

On that last comment... the "thrown" should have obviously been spelled "throne" but that is the only response that really is worth anything...

My interpretation of these results... about a third of the insiders are Rick's peeps... and Rick's peeps in this collection of insiders all responded both that he is not running and he shouldn't run... meanwhile some of the neutral peeps and 100% of the anti Rick peeps responded that they think he is running but also said he shouldn't run...

Some of the responses though just show how Texas insiders should stay inside Texas and not try to be national pundits... although the insiders definitely were right in predicting Rick's win against Bill White a few weeks before the election...

The Economist sees Rick as a moderating influence on the strong majority in the legislature...

2010-11-30T12:17:00.001-06:00

This is an intriguing take from the Economist's writer who is based in Texas (link). Excerpt follows...

ONE of the first plays by America’s tea-party tendency came in April 2009 in Austin, the capital of Texas. After speaking at an anti-tax rally, Rick Perry, the governor, intimated that Texas might think about secession “if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people”. Grandstanding like this is normal in Texas. What is more surprising is that, as the tea-party movement surged through the 2010 election cycle, Texas actually turned out to be one of the less incendiary states.

And Mr Perry is now sounding less fiery than some had feared. Earlier this month he easily won re-election to his third full term. He then set off on a short national tour to promote his new book, “Fed Up!” Fighting words, but his prescriptions—“repeal Obamacare”, “adopt certain important structural reforms”—are common enough. Some wonder whether Mr Perry has presidential ambitions for 2012. He says no, and may mean it: last week, in San Diego, he accepted a post as head of the Republican Governors Association.

[SNIP]

Texas might also feel the force of a resurgent right over immigration. The state takes a fairly balanced view of border issues in general and, for cultural and economic reasons, tends to support immigration more than the country as a whole. When Arizona passed its draconian anti-immigration law, for example, Mr Perry said this was “not the right direction for Texas”. Some legislators, however, disagree, and one has already filed a bill modelled on Arizona’s.

The governor’s view is the more popular. But Democrats are worried that an Arizona-style bill might nonetheless make its way to his desk. In that case, 2011 may be the year that Mr Perry becomes the moderating influence on Texas politics. Stranger things have happened.

I think it is interesting that this international publication pays so much attention to Texas... more so than many national publications based in New York...

Joe Straus has a new web video...

2010-11-30T11:04:00.000-06:00

Professionally done... looks good... takes you through the speaker's political resume... doesn't necessarily address the criticisms of him though... especially the criticisms in the other videos out there...

Have the holidays stalled the speakers race... frozen it in place?

2010-11-30T10:10:00.001-06:00

It seems like things have gotten sort of quiet in the speakers race...

Anyone hearing anything?

One thing I found interesting is that the Paxton peeps seem to have dropped the ball when it comes to blogger out reach (link). Excerpt follows...

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

11/21/2010 12:25 PM Leon wrote:
I don't understand why there is any question of the Speaker's conservative foundation. Clearly, he is going to hold all of our conservative values close.
Reply to this
11/21/2010 6:14 PM Texas Trooper wrote:
RINO JOE needs to GO !!
Reply to this
11/24/2010 10:13 AM Ken Emanuelson wrote:
Have you posted an open letter from Ken Paxton, also?
If not, why not?
Reply to this
1. 11/24/2010 10:36 AM Kathleen McKinley wrote:
  A friend of mine who works for Joe asked me to post a guest post from him. I called Ken Paxton's office immediately and left a message that said I would welcome a guest post from him. That was a week ago. I haven't heard back.
  Reply to this

So my hunch was right about Kathleen McKinley not really endorsing Joe Straus, but just providing a forum for him to express his views... Paxton's peeps should send her something and be more proactive...

On the other side Joe Straus' peeps are spending a lot of time courting bloggers... without a lot of payoff since bloggers tend to also be more conservative and tea party minded... they do have David Jennings from Big Jolly on their side out there defending Straus... and the Pondering Penguin was not very happy that a Georgia based national blog Red State was taking a position on the Texas speakers race... but again she didn't actually endorse Straus...

The pro Paxton blogs seem to have arrived at that conclusion of their own accord... without any specific out reach...

Right before Thanksgiving there were a lot of things going on... videos being put out... state reps committing to Paxton... but other than two more freshmen Republicans committing to Paxton (link) it is getting really quiet now... will it heat up again?

Grading Politifact... Gardner Selby gets an F....

2010-11-25T11:20:00.001-06:00

Sublime Bloviations blog does a great job fact checking Politifact and finds they are full of it (link). Excerpt follows...

Grading PolitiFact (Texas): Rick Perry and Ponzi schemes

This again? It's illuminating to find PolitiFact so unrepentant regarding its failures. PolitiFact has found the comparison between Social Security financing and Ponzi schemes "Barely True," "False" and now "False" again.

Just one problem: It's true. A reasonable effort by PolitiFact should find it "Half True" or better.

The key PolitiFact finding is that the "Ponzi scheme" is fraudulent by definition. And if you can get journalist and non-economist Michell/Mitchell Zuckoff to proclaim that as a fact in his role as expert source then it's mission accomplished, in a manner of speaking.

Michell (sic) Zuckoff, a Boston University journalism professor who has written a book on Ponzi, noted critical dissimilarities between Social Security and a Ponzi scheme, which by definition is both fraudulent and unsustainable.

"First, in the case of Social Security, no one is being misled," Zuckoff's January 2009 article in Fortune magazine says. "...Social Security is exactly what it claims to be: A mandatory transfer payment system under which current workers are taxed on their incomes to pay benefits, with no promises of huge returns."
(bold emphasis added)

The problem for Zuckoff and PolitiFact is that economists don't see it that way:

A Ponzi scheme is a strategy of rolling over a debt forever and thereby never paying it back.

Kevin X. Huang and Jan Werner are not alone:

To Kindelberger and other writers on financial scams, the essential feature of Ponzi's activities was 'misrepresentation or the violation of an implicit or explicit trust' (1978: 79-80). In economic theory, however, the label 'Ponzi' survives largely stripped of its connotation of fraud.
(The New Palgrave Dictionary of Money & Finance)

What gives Mitchell Zuckoff (and PolitiFact) the right to discount the definition of "Ponzi scheme" as understood by economists?

Nothing. Nothing at all.

Zuckoff and PolitiFact make the claim of exclusive definition out of apparent ignorance, though I have evidence that staffers at the Providence Journal(source of PolitiFact Rhode Island) took note of the criticism and didn't care enough to change the story.

When three teams of journalists successively flub a similar fact check it starts to resemble a pattern.

The grades:

W. Gardner Selby: F

Brenda Bell: F

Perhaps there's a tendency to trust their colleagues at PolitiFact. Regardless, it's unacceptable and appalling that PolitiFact got this fact check wrong on three consecutive tries.

Really a great read... even Paul Krugman has called Social Security a Ponzi scheme... Politifact is awful... period...

Corruption?

2010-11-24T20:50:00.000-06:00

Erick Erickson of Red State escalated the rhetoric and called the hearing on Bryan Hughes' allegation about Larry Phillips threatening members with redistricting if they didn't support Straus "Corruption" (link). Excerpt follows...

I know some of you are a bit perplexed about why I, a guy in Georgia, keep writing about Joe Straus, a liberal elitist in Texas.

It is very simple really. Texas is going to make big gains in the census and pick up some congressional districts. Conservatives across the country must be concerned that the man who will have the heaviest hand in drawing those lines is 100% NARAL supported and ridiculously corrupt.

We must fight at the state level here to help the conservative cause nationally in the 2012 elections.

And what happened late yesterday should concern everyone — really concern everyone, not to mention embarrass all the Texans.

As I previously mentioned, Straus sent out his loyal lieutenant Larry Phillips to tell a number of Republican State House members that if they did not vote for Straus, Straus would draw them out of their districts.

When the accusation was made, Straus referred the matter to the House Ethics Committee. Larry Phillips just so happens to be Vice Chair of that committee.

Here is where it gets fun.

Phillips did not recuse himself until after he was named as the man making the threats for Straus.

Rep. Bryan Hughes testified under oath that Phillips had made the threats.

Phillips was then called to testify and would not testify under oath. Phillips denied everything.

In other words, Hughes was willing to swear an oath and risk jail if he lied. Phillips refused to swear an oath so that, because he lied, nothing could happen to him.

And then the Speaker’s investigative committee declined to take any action.

It’s like suddenly Louisiana politicians have taken over Texas.

Why wouldn't Phillips just testify under oath? And why wouldn't Hopson recuse himself? The Straus team needs to be much less antagonistic and secretive and old boys insider esque here because they are just giving tea party peeps and bloggers something to write about... the more peeps write about it the more chance there is that Straus is booted... it is really that simple.

I don't know if there was corruption... I really have no idea what happened or if Bryan Hughes was taking something out of context or exaggerating but I doubt he out right made it up... Larry Phillips is saying that Hughes is lying under oath... but Phillips won't go under oath to say so? It doesn't pass the smell test...

Ken Herman... a Jewish journalist... argues it is okay to let religion play a role in a political choice...

2010-11-24T20:24:00.000-06:00

Ken Herman certainly has some humorous moments, but he tackled a pretty serious issue this week (link). Excerpt follows...

Let's see if with a collective deep breath we can think our way through an ugly little political undercurrent that might hyperventilate into an ugly big overcurrent.

Some Christian conservatives in Texas are urging other Christian conservatives to help oust Texas House Speaker Joe Straus, R-San Antonio, who is Jewish.

[SNIP]

Is the anti-Straus movement anti-Semitic? Could be, but what I've seen seems to be more pro-Christian.

I may be naive, but I'm going to try to make the case that there's nothing wrong with allowing your religion to inform your politics, and there is nothing wrong with siding with politicians who share your religion-informed politics.

A really interesting take on this race and the controversy that somehow got ginned up... take a step back from the ledge peeps... take a deep breath... and focus on the issues and leadership...

David Barton weighs in on the Speakers race with a video...

2010-11-24T20:11:00.000-06:00

The influential social conservative leader doesn't endorse Paxton per se but does oppose Joe Straus... but is that picture really Harvey Kronberg?

My junk just got felt...

2010-11-24T19:29:00.000-06:00

As someone traveling on one of the busiest travel days in America... I got my junk felt... it was a lot more invasive than I expected...

Rick has an idea that might help. He wants to take the TSA peeps who feel your junk and put them on the border (link). Excerpt follows...

The incoming chairman of the Republican Governors Association suggested Friday that TSA screeners would be more help securing the nation's border with Mexico.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry said Friday on Fox Business Network that states need to "push Washington back into that box that we call the United States constitution," but said the federal government needs to follow through on its responsibility of securing the U.S. border.

"Just in the last two weeks, I've had five of my citizens who've lost their lives on that border with Mexico, and that is an irresponsible lack of focus by our federal government," Perry said, calling the federal security an "abject failure."

When asked if, in the wake of the TSA invasive pat-down controversy, he'd replace TSA screeners as states are allowed under federal law, Perry had an idea.

"How about we take all those TSA agents and put them on the border with Mexico where they can do some security there?" Perry said. "That's where we need security substantially more than in our airports and what we're seeing out of this bunch."

Frankly I don't mind the full body scan that much but if you are scanning my body there better be a medical reason for it... I don't need all of that extra radiation in my body... you better be checking out to see how I am doing in there...

You really have to give it to Rick... he is in tune with the populist grass roots when it comes to issues like this... he was basically the first politician to come out against these junk feelers... and he pulled off the double whammy by suggesting they should also go help secure the border... he just gets it doesn't he?

Who will succeed Ed Kuempel?

2010-11-24T11:10:00.000-06:00

After Representative Kuempel passed away there was an immediate scramble to fill his seat (link). Excerpt follows...

Ten, count 'em, 10, candidates are in the running to replace the late Rep. Ed Kuempel (R-Seguin) in a special election.

Kuempel died two days following the general election, following a bout of heart complications. Gov. Rick Perry announced Dec. 14 (a Tuesday) as the date of the special election for HD 44 (Guadalupe, Gonzales, and Wilson counties), and the filing deadline was 5 p.m. Monday.

They are, according to the Texas Secretary of State's office:

• Daniel Rodriguez Andrade (D), 45, of Seguin, a real estate business owner.

• Ron Avery (R), 63, of Seguin, an architect.

• Chris Burchell (R), 46, of Adkins, a law enforcement officer.

• Jim Fish (R), 53, of Cibolo, an entrepreneur.

• Tony Gergely (L), 51, of Seguin, a chemist who owns a laboratory which produces chemicals for commercial fishermen.

• Gary W. Inmon (R), 43, of Schertz, a private practice attorney and president-elect of the Texas Association of School Boards.

• John Kuempel (R), 40, of Seguin, a salesman and son of Rep. Kuempel.

• Myrna McLeroy (R), 72, of Gonzales, an oil and gas landman, a former State Republican Executive Committeewoman.

• Cheryl Dees Patterson (D), 44, of Seguin, a real estate agent.

• Robin R. Walker (R), 58, of Seguin, a self-employed business manager who challenged Rep. Kuempel in the GOP primary, drawing 25 percent.

Early voting is scheduled from Nov. 29-Dec. 10. Candidates from all parties will appear on the same ballot. If no candidate receives a majority, a runoff will follow about a month later.

I have heard that John Kuempel and Robin Walker are the top candidates, but why wouldn't some of these other candidates be formidable too?

Larry Phillips... vice chairman of the panel investigating... Larry Phillips... recuses himself...

2010-11-23T18:06:00.001-06:00

This is strange. Bryan Hughes is alleging that Larry Phillips is the person who reached out to him on behalf of Straus and suggested that there would be consequences in redistricting if Hughes didn't go along (link). Excerpt follows...

Rep. Larry Phillips, R-Sherman, the vice chairman of the House committee charged with investigating ethics complaints, was identified today as the House leadership member who allegedly warned a colleague that lawmakers who fail to support Speaker Joe Straus for re-election could face retribution through redistricting.

Rep. Charles L. "Chuck" Hopson, chairman of the House General Investigating and Ethics Committee, made the disclosure before the committee went into closed executive session to discuss the allegation. Phillips recused himself as vice chairman of the panel and was participating in the closed session. He was not immediately available for comment.

Hopson ordered the inquiry after Rep. Bryan Hughes, R-Mineola, released a statement saying that a member of Straus' leadership team warned him that members who fail to support Straus in the speaker's race could be punished when lawmakers redraw legislative districts next year.

This is really amazing stuff... however my belief is that nobody is paying attention at all... this is all insider gamesmanship until perhaps after the new year when there will be a stretch of about 10 days of fast and furious campaigning by insiders and outsiders alike. For now both sides would be smart to build their armies and if you are Straus avoid embarrassments like this...

I had suggested that Phillips should recuse himself because he took money from Straus this year, but he had to recuse himself because he is the one being accused of threatening Hughes... Hopson should also recuse himself because of the enormous amount of money Straus gave his campaign this year... just to prove this is not a sham hearing...

Hughes played that whole thing very smartly... and depending on what happens now he should probably give more details...

On the one hand threatening redistricting someone out of their seat is likely unethical and possibly illegal... on the other hand we don't know what actually happened... it could have been an innocent remark by Phillips that Hughes blew up into something bigger we really don't know... except Hughes testified under oath and Phillips did not testify under oath and they disagreed on what was said... which is a little bit suspicious...

If Paxton keeps picking up 2 or 3 new pledges each day it has the possibility to snow ball but I think everyone can count, and Straus still has many many more pledges than he needs... it will take a critical mass of an opposition... many of whom got burned 2 years ago opposing Straus and do not want to get burned again now... before Straus is truly threatened...

Speakers race in pictures...

2010-11-23T10:29:00.000-06:00

The Texas Tribune did a good job on this although in some ways it is more dizzying than it needs to be (link)...

Their version is interactive... you can click on faces and see details over at the Texas Tribune web page...

I think they could have made it a lot easier to follow... but maybe they wanted it to seem confusing to convey reality.

Peeps committing to Paxton...

2010-11-23T08:33:00.000-06:00

There has been a small drip drop of peeps in the Texas House unpledging from Straus and committing to Paxton... and other freshmen committing to Paxton... it is still a fairly small number though. Does anyone see this trend continuing through the holidays? Or is the task too much of an up hill climb for Straus' foes...

Ken Paxton has a web site now too...

2010-11-22T14:36:00.000-06:00

Straus had a web site called http://www.conservatives4joestraus.com/

They messed up because if you go to http://www.conservativesforjoestraus.com/ it actually takes you to http://no2joestraus.com/ which is obviously an anti Straus web site...

Now there is also http://www.paxtonforspeaker.com/

There also seems to be some serious action at Side Line Bomb Thrower http://sidelinebombthrower.com/ which is now permanently listed over there on the side of Rick vs. Kay...

They wrote a few blogs supporting Rick in the gubernatorial race... and also bashed Michael Sullivan a little bit... now they seem to be the main blog out there supporting Joe Straus...

Meanwhile Red State keeps chugging along bashing Straus... and Texas bloggers are printing guest blogs from Joe Straus... not necessarily endorsing Straus it seems but putting their takes on the situation...

Texas Sparkle at the Houston Chronicle just prints the guest blog without any commentary (link)... does that mean she is endorsing Straus? It doesn't seem like she has weighed in at all on either side...

The Pondering Penguin is staying neutral but seems to be leaning toward Straus and at least doesn't like that a Georgia blogger is having such an influence on the Texas speakers race (link). Excerpt follows...

Why has the founder of a conservative blog, in Georgia, become so heavily invested in the race for Speaker of the House in the Texas state legislature? Why would this city council member from Macon, Georgia and professional blogger, as well as a newly popular conservative commentator on talking head cable shows and radio star wanna be (he all but begs Rush to allow him to guest host) decide to make a stand on his choice for this particular election?

I dared to make a comment on his Facebook page as he weighed in on the race - encouraging his Texas readers to call House members and asking them to "burn up some phone lines". I did so because I just think his involvement is strange. Maybe it's me. Maybe not. I have no way of knowing. He, however, responded, making references to 'stuck pigs' so there you have that, for whatever it's worth.

I am not taking a position either and I do like Red State but I also want to see Texans decide the Texas speakers race... not Mike Huckabee who has endorsed Paxton... Dick Armey has also endorsed Paxton but at least he is a Texan... Armey endorsed Kay over Rick though so he is not necessarily the best barometer in intraparty fights...

How will all of this play out? Is any of this getting through the clutter?

About Joe Straus and that 100% NARAL rating... how fair is that anyway?

2010-11-22T13:41:00.000-06:00

The anti Straus peeps have a video out that makes the case pretty succinctly why Straus should not be speaker... and it includes a link about Straus' 100% rating from NARAL the pro abortion group (link)...

It is a tough video... to be sure...

The untrustworthy Dallas Morning News gave that claim about NARAL 3 peppers on its hotness scale (link). Excerpt follows...

THE FACTS:

In 2007, Straus voted 100 percent of the time with NARAL Pro-Choice Texas. However, he only voted on one of nine votes the group considered crucial that session. Straus voted "aye" on an unsuccessful amendment to the state budget that would have shifted to child-abuse prevention efforts $5 million previously allotted to "pregnancy crisis centers," which advise women and girls about alternatives to abortions.

Sara Cleveland, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Texas, said Straus favors helping women obtain family-planning services and birth control but is hardly in lockstep with her group. In the 2005 session, his first, it rated him a 45. That year, he voted on 11 of the group's 14 key roll calls - and against them on six of them. (As speaker, he doesn't cast votes so he had no score last year.) The 2009 session's biggest abortion-related issue was an unsuccesful bill that would have mandated sonograms for women seeking abortions. Texans for Life president Kyleen Wright of Mansfield has said Straus worked with her "consistently and in good faith" on that measure.

THE BOTTOM LINE:

Straus isn't a fervent social conservative, but it's misleading to cast him as a staunch abortion-rights advocate.

THREE PEPPERS

While the Dallas Morning News is known for bad fact checks just like all the rest of the MSM, this one resonates. It does seem to be a little bit misleading to say he is strictly pro abortion or to use his rabbi's affiliation with Planned Parenthood as proof of what he believes on the issue, but you can't blame anyone for saying he had a 100% rating from NARAL... because that's the rating NARAL gave him... I think Straus should come out more forcefully on this issue if he wants to prove he is really pro life...

This did help... pro life advocate Kyleen Wright endorsed Straus (link). The letter follows...

Kyleen Wright, President of Texans for Life Coalition, wrote this letter in support of Speaker Joe Straus’ strong Pro-Life position. Please take a moment to read:

A charge has been leveled that Speaker Straus and his lieutenants killed the sonogram bill last session. This is categorically false, and I am disappointed about this and other claims, as well as the tenor of this race.

Speaker Straus’s office and lieutenants, in particular Chairman Charlie Geren and Chairman Todd Smith, worked consistently and in good faith with Texans for Life to pass the popular pro- life measure. Chairman Geren, as a member of the State Affairs Committee, worked to ensure an April hearing and to strengthen the weaker senate version of the bill at my request. Chairman Smith also pushed for hearings on the bill and a stronger version.

What finally killed the sonogram bill was the same thing that killed so many bills: the filibuster of the Voter ID bill, as the clock simply ran out. Even so, had former Speaker Craddick not missed the formal hearing called by Chairman Solomons on April 30th, the bill would have been voted out and ahead of Voter ID on the calendar, sailing to victory. A final Hail Mary Pass was played when Chairman Geren again intervened to secure the #2 spot on the Major State Calendar for the bill at the end of the session.

Furthermore, it was the Speaker’s team who rallied to my aid to defeat the Planned Parenthood sex ed bills.

Texans for Life and I are very grateful for the help of Speaker Straus and his team.

I have been taken to task for my assertions that Speaker Straus and his lieutenants helped pro- life efforts in the last session, and that there were all kind of other shenanigans we were up against. A quick review is in order.

First, it was a Craddick lieutenant who, on April 17th, pulled down all the budget amendments that pro-lifers had put forth after months of research and the establishment of an elaborate on- site support system to assist members debating them. Pro- life leaders were devastated to see Rep. Phil King announce a deal had been struck with liberal Democrat and abortion advocate, Jessica Farrar. Without talking to a single stakeholder, this lieutenant, according to another pro- life leader, “gave up a lot, including a potentially devastating blow against Planned Parenthood…and got very little.” What we “got” was a weak and unsustainable embryo destruction rider.

As for the hearing on the sonogram bill, it was established that no controversial bills would be heard before the budget passed, the single legislative requirement for the session. This was a very tense, closely divided house after all. Nevertheless, the first week after the budget passed, the sonogram bill was heard in State Affairs. For the first time in the collective institutional memory of pro- life leaders, Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro- Choice Texas gave no public testimony against a pro-life bill. This did not bode well for us, and brought to mind rumors that there were members determined to ensure nothing pro- life would pass on Straus’ watch.

The significance of Craddick walking the vote on April 30th, is that he told the bill author ahead of time that he would not be there and did not want us to know. Clearly, arrangements could have been made as he and we were aware of the need to get this bill moving through the process before voter ID exploded in the house. Subsequent delays in getting the bill out of committee were the result of in- fighting among members and pro- life leaders about the substance of the bill. The Senate version was very weak and there was confusion over whether or not Senator Dan Patrick had promised senators that the bill would not be strengthened in the House. Straus lieutenant Rep. Charlie Geren, at my urging, fought for a stronger version which eventually did pass out of committee.

Meanwhile, the Planned Parenthood sex ed bills were working their way through Public Education, and it was Craddick supporters we had to peel off the bill. It’s not a great leap in logic to suspect that those working against pro- life victories for the Straus team would just as soon hang a Planned Parenthood bill around his neck. Finally, in the midst of the chubbing, my colleagues and I wrote the members of the Republican Caucus to urge them to end the chubbing because the sonogram bill was still in play. We reminded them that in the previous session Speaker Craddick had pulled the sonogram bill down to prevent the Democrats from chubbing, and suggesting it was our turn to benefit from a little horse- trading.

I attach for you the response I received from a Craddick lieutenant responding frankly that they could not because there were other bills just ahead on the calendar that they did not want to vote on. The member’s name has been redacted, and an unredacted copy has been provided to media for corroboration. Click here to read the e-mail response.

There are other emails I am not releasing, including one from a pro- life leader noting with surprise that certain Straus lieutenants had been our best help on the sonogram bill, and another detailing how Charlie Geren “could not have been more gracious and assured me he wanted us to work together.”

My loyalty is to the Life issue, and will not be clouded by personal loyalties. People will draw their own conclusions, but reasonable people will not find it unbelievable that members and others who lost power and influence in the sea change of leadership had an ax to grind against Straus. The continued demonization of Speaker Straus and distortion of his record is just more of the same.

Kyleen Wright

Those are all important points that can't be ignored...

Straus probably needs to be articulating some of this a little bit more forcefully... because you see and hear 100% NARAL enough times and it becomes a rallying point...

Kay's move...

2010-11-22T12:44:00.000-06:00

The Texas Tribune has a sort of rambling blog on Kay's future but it makes a few good points (link). Excerpt follows...

What will happen this time around is anyone’s guess. Candidates file for office in the first days of the year in which they’ll be running. Hutchison’s office isn’t on the ballot until 2012, so it’ll be in the first week of January — not this one, but the next one — when she actually, legally, has to state her intentions. Only White has said he’s not interested this time. You can add Lt. Gov.David Dewhurst to the possible candidates on the Republican side (not saying yes, not saying no, so keep him listed). U.S. Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Waco, got beat on Election Day but has lots of friends in the political money class and is the subject of much speculation. If you actually ask him, which risks spoiling the speculation, he says he hasn’t thought about future political races.

When she ran for governor, Hutchison signaled her seriousness not by resigning from one job to run for the other, but by nearly emptying her federal campaign finance treasury into her state political account. Texas, with more than a dozen and a half media markets, is a notoriously expensive place to campaign; a statewide Senate race usually costs upward of $10 million, more if it’s a real competition. At the end of September — the date of the latest report Hutchison filed with the Federal Election Commission — she had $52,053 in her federal campaign account.

Want to know what she’s up to? Ignore the pronouncements and the parsing of her statements. Watch the money. If she wants voters to give her another term in 2012, she’ll have to convince the political financiers first.

Kay may have a difficult time raising money with as much ease as she once did... having lost so soundly to Rick a lot of her fund raising base has probably dried up and a lot of people will be hesitant to throw good money after bad... it is also a lot more effort and time intensive to raise money at the federal level... she can't just get a few big checks as in state politics...

Crushing free speech? What is the story here?

2010-11-22T11:19:00.000-06:00

Texan Raz Shafer who works for American Majority and writes blogs for Red State has a blog up arguing that Joe Straus wants to crush free speech for bloggers (link). Excerpt follows...

Freedom of speech is under attack courtesy of Texas House Speaker Joe Straus. He is effectively trying to stuff as much speech as possible into the definition of “political advertising,” hassling average Texans out of the conversation. In his interim charge to the General Investigating & Ethics Committee Straus commanded the following:

Review the definition of “political advertising” and determine whether the definition should be expanded to include content contained in blogs and other types of Internet communications.(For the complete list of interim charges click here.)

By changing the definition of “political advertising” in this way, Straus would effectively quash the ability of ordinary citizens to discuss politics online. All of a sudden your tweet about supporting a candidate would be a political advertisement instead of free speech and you’d have to file an ethics report with the State of Texas. There would have to be monetary values tied to blog posts, tweets, facebook statuses, etc. and the burden of that reporting would be on you!

When I first read the charge I had to do a double-take. The very idea of making citizens file ethics reports over personal tweets and blog posts seems like something we might expect from Speaker Nancy Pelosi, not a REPUBLICAN Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives! What should startle Texans is that Joe Straus, leader in the race for Speaker of the a Texas House with 99-51 Republican advantage, is pushing this issue from the wrong side.

Straus needs to clarify this asap or he is going to spark a blogger mutiny... if there is one thing bloggers on all sides of the political spectrum agree on it is that rules preventing them from expressing themselves freely should be quashed... and peeps proposing such rules should be crushed.

Team Straus has done some obvious blogger out reach and it is probably paying off... but they need to explain this in a hurry or there will be a big grass roots revolt against him... nothing quite angers Republican activists like the threat of losing even a part of their free speech....

The committee chairman investigating Bryan Hughes' allegations against Joe Straus got 42 thousand dollars from Straus this year...

2010-11-22T10:33:00.000-06:00

At the very least this doesn't look good (link). Excerpt follows...

The chairman of an internal investigating committee meeting Tuesday to discuss allegations of intimidation and retribution by House Speaker Joe Straus received campaign donations totaling $42,000 from Straus and a political action committee he helped found.

The Joe R. Straus III campaign account and the Texas House Leadership Fund made four donations between February and September to the campaign of Chuck Hopson, R-Jacksonville, who Straus appointed in February of 2009 to chair the House General Investigating and Ethics Committee, according to records kept by the Texas Ethics Commission. The Straus and Leadership funds also made two donations totaling $5,000 to the vice-chairman of the committee, Larry Phillips, R-Sherman, the Ethics Commission records showed.

If Straus wants this to be a credible investigation, Hopson should recuse himself and let an objective member of the House look at what happened or didn't happen. Larry Phillips the vice chairman who also got money from Straus should also recuse himself for these proceedings to have any credibility...

Was Hughes exaggerating? Was there actual intimidation with redistricting being held up as the stick? I think it is in the best interests of everyone involved... especially Straus... to have the investigation be looked at as fair and honest and not tainted by donations or favors owed. It is entirely possible that nothing unethical happened, or it could have been the case of a rogue operator who didn't speak for Straus going overboard in the heat of the moment when talking to Hughes. Whatever the case, the process should not be clouded by a team member for one side also serving as a referee.

Kay swearing off earmarks? I guess she is running in 2012....

2010-11-18T14:59:00.000-06:00

The "earmark queen" is giving up earmarks after Mitch McConnell relented on the issue (link). Excerpt follows...

WASHINGTON – Bowing to tea party pressure, Senate Republicans adopted a two-year moratorium on earmarks Tuesday night after Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and other resisters jumped on the bandwagon.

ALEX BRANDON/The Associated Press

From left: Sens. Mitch McConnell , Lamar Alexander and John Cornyn talk about the earmark ban, which covers only Republicans in the Senate and is not enforceable.

The self-imposed ban mirrors an anti-earmark vow by the incoming House GOP majority. And it could have a significant effect on Texas, which has long relied on lawmakers in both parties to secure billions for hospitals, levees, bridges and military installations.

Hutchison has been an ardent purveyor of earmarks throughout her Senate career, directing at least $10 billion in federal spending in the last five years alone – mostly to Texas military bases, transit projects, universities and researchers. She said she decided to support the moratorium "as a way to the start the process of reform that is essential to address the crushing debt our country has accumulated."

But like other latecomers to the cause, she seemed less than enthusiastic about the move targeting earmarks, provisions tucked into legislation that specify funding for a particular project.

The article goes on to say how terrible ending earmarks will be for Texas but fails to mention that Texas gets back a small fraction of earmarks relative to its size and what we pay to the federal government... if projects are truly worthy they will go through the normal appropriations process and not be secretly added by individual members... people need to get off the addiction to earmarks because in the end Texas ends up being a subsidy state for other states even if Texas does receive earmarks... the other thing that Kay sometimes sez is that Texas earmarks are all legitimate projects which may be true... but in order to get those we are all sacrificing our dollars and our principles to pay for frivolous projects in other states... Rick's peeps pointed out things like butterfly museums and indoor rain forests in other states... and again if Kay's earmarks are so valid she will be able to fight for them in normal channels... out in the open...

What Kay relenting on an earmark ban means to me is that she is running again in 2012 and wants to take this issue off the table... is also seems like her best friend in Washington Mitch McConnell changing his mind almost immediately changed her mind...

It is early in the game yet... lessons from 2009... in the speakers race...

2010-11-18T13:37:00.000-06:00

Michael Sullivan has some interesting points here (link). Excerpt follows...

Two years is an eternity in politics, which might explain the forgetfulness surrounding the speakership. In November 2008, there were nine members of the Texas House vying to be Speaker. And not one of them was named Joe Straus.

In fact, State Rep. Joe Straus was pledged to the incumbent Republican Speaker, Tom Craddick of Midland.

O, how a month changes everything.

[SNIP]

Consider this. Challenging Mr. Craddick for the gavel in November '08 were Pete Gallego (D-Alpine), Scott Hochberg (D-Houston), Alan Ritter (D-Nederland), Senfronia Thompson (D-Houston), Sylvester Turner (D-Houston), Delwin Jones (R-Lubbock), Jim Keffer (R-Eastland), and Tommy Merritt (R-Longview). See a particular name missing?

[SNIP]

Lesson 1. When Mr. Straus' team brags about their pledge cards, remember that Mr. Straus was pledged in November to Mr. Craddick. So what Straus signer might right now be in the wings, unaware she or he might be the next speaker?

Lesson 2. When folks compare the pledges of Mr. Straus' challengers to Mr. Straus, consider the list of opponents to Mr. Craddick and their pledges. Mr. Paxton and Mr. Chisum have more pledges and support today than Mr. Straus did two years ago today.

Lesson 3. Demands that pledge cards be considered binding must be met with a chuckle. Apparently even Mr. Straus did not consider his pledge to be of any consequence.

Welcome to the future. Something remarkable is happening, historically: the people aren't going away as some insiders had hoped. The backroom dealings have had its day, but that day is hopefully nearly done.

No longer will Texans be content with a speaker chosen behind the scenes in a feudal system of pledges to a manor-lord. The speakership is a high office of public trust, and the people must be part of the discussion. That only happens through full political transparency, open debate and public dialogue.

This seems like a new tact from Michael Sullivan... to argue that the speakership is a high office of public trust... it is somewhat of a populist argument but an argument that even the liberal editorial boards will find hard to ignore... shouldn't the people be part of the process and shouldn't the process be transparent rather than behind closed doors?

At the same time though I think there were a lot more cracks in the Craddick control on the House two years ago after so many of his peeps lost left and right in the anti Bush wave of 2006 and the Obama wave of 2008... right now there are only two declared opponents to Joe Straus... and the Democrats aren't showing any cracks either in their support because they know the more moderate Straus is a better bet for them than someone like Ken Paxton...

I still think there is a speakers race... I wouldn't say it's over... but more reps will need to begin peeling off from Straus... and I do see his support as a bit soft with a lot of members but they aren't willing to speak out if it means they will lose their assignments or be targeted for redistricting... and redistricting will involve a lot of infighting within the GOP this year...

Joe Straus doing guest blog posts now...

2010-11-18T11:25:00.002-06:00

In an attempt to bolster his conservative credentials Joe Straus is now doing guest blogs on blogs such as Big Jolly Politics (link). Excerpt follows...

First, I want to thank Big Jolly Politics for the hard work you do. You give Texans a conservative, hard-hitting outlook on the important issues being decided up in Austin.

Texas is looking at a major budget challenge when the Legislature convenes next year and I have already taken steps to balance our budget without raising taxes or fees. Along with Gov. Perry and Lt. Gov. Dewhurst, I have told state agencies they must decrease their upcoming budget requests by 10 percent.

These requests are a continuation of efforts to meet our constitutional duty to balance the state budget. We take our responsibility to Texas taxpayers very seriously, and I believe, together, we can make the necessary choices to help the Texas economy rebound and grow stronger.

I am committed to cutting government and making Austin live within its means, and I hope you will get behind my conservative leadership now.

After being elected Speaker, I guided the House through a difficult session plagued by tough economic times. We passed a budget that reduced state general revenue spending by more than two percent a year, invested close to $2 billion more in public education, increased college financial aid by $250 million, provided seed funding for the expansion of the number of Tier One institutions in Texas, and allowed the state’s “Rainy Day Fund” to grow to $9 billion to address future budgetary challenges.

That just proves that with the right leadership, we can make the hard decisions and still keep Texas strong.

The House passed its version of the budget with a unanimous vote. Similarly, legislators passed major school accountability reforms out of the House without a single dissenting vote.

I’m proud of the steps the House has taken since I became Speaker. We Republicans are working together and now with 99 GOP members, I look forward to the kind of budget reforms that our state needs.

You can learn more at www.conservatives4joestraus.com

This is an interesting tactic... will any other bloggers follow suit?

Michael Q. Sullivan talks with Red State peeps about the speakers race...

2010-11-18T11:16:00.000-06:00

This is definitely worth listening to (link). Sullivan's perspective is that the Texas speakers race mirrors the national debate between establishment figures in the Republican Party and insurgent conservatives... is he right? You can listen and think for yourself...

Why would Mike Huckabee weigh in on the Texas speakers race... and why should anyone listen to him?

2010-11-18T10:54:00.000-06:00

Mike Huckabee has endorsed Ken Paxton... that was the news yesterday... he opposes Joe Straus (link)...

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee today waded into the Texas House speaker’s race, endorsing Ken Paxton. Paxton, a McKinney Republican, is challenging House Speaker Joe Straus, R-San Antonio.

“While Republicans across Texas and across the nation had many great victories on November 2nd, the battle for true conservatism is not over,” says a statement from Huckabee and his political action committee, HuckPAC. “Now, as the majority Party in many State Houses, and the U.S. House, Republicans have the duty and ability to select strong conservatives to be new Speakers of the House. That position should be filled by one who has the knowledge, ability and relationships to create and push a strong conservative agenda. In Texas, that’s Ken Paxton.”

So what?

What does that mean?

Is Huckabee trying to prove himself as some kind of king maker? How does a Texas speakers race help him in New Hampshire and Iowa? What am I missing here?

Does Huckabee have that much sway in Texas?

Jason Embry thinks Republicans choosing the next speaker in Texas is a Washington idea...

2010-11-18T10:41:00.000-06:00

I am not pro Straus or anti Straus but...

Again... the more of this kind of drivel I read in the liberal press, the more I am leaning against Straus. The best thing Straus could do right now is get the newspaper writers to stop writing nice things about him and bad things about his critics...

From Jason Embry's column (link). Excerpt follows...

Certain Republican lawmakers and activists don't like that it was mostly Democrats who gave Straus the early support he needed to beat Craddick. They want to prevent Democrats from again having the dominant vote in the speaker's race, even though dozens of Republicans who backed Craddick two years ago now want Straus to stay.

So the alternative they favor is to gather all GOP lawmakers in a caucus and choose a speaker from among their ranks. All of the Republicans would then agree to support that candidate when the formal vote for speaker arrives, and those who didn't would risk, at the very least, defeat in the next GOP primary.

The thinking here is that voters loudly and clearly spoke in favor of Republican rule when they gave the GOP a 99-51 House majority on election night, and those voters deserve a speaker who has the support of most Republican lawmakers.

Seems reasonable enough, but let's be clear: This is the Washington way of doing things.

Whichever party has the majority in the U.S. House chooses the House speaker from among its own membership. That person then functions as the leader of his or her partisan team, instead of trying to be the leader of the entire House, as Straus has.

Would Nancy Pelosi have been elected speaker if she had to campaign in front of the entire House, instead of just the Democrats?

This approach would prevent, say, 46 Republicans from joining with 30 Democrats to elect a speaker, because 53 other Republicans wanted someone else. A majority in the Republican caucus would become more important than a majority in the full House.

OK, but I have this nagging memory that I can't quite shake. I swear I remember hearing over the past several years that Washington was a broken, poisonous, corrupting place that had lost touch with the American people, and that the Texas way was always superior to the Washington way.

But now some proud Texans want to take a major step toward Washington-style governance?

My memory of this whole anti-Washington fervor really does seem pretty clear. I'm almost certain it happened. But maybe it was all in my head.

How weird.

This is just stupid.

The Texas way is whatever Texans say the Texas way is. Republicans getting together and agreeing to take a vote as a caucus and abide by that vote isn't the Washington way or the Texas way. It's called listening to the voice of the people in Texas who overwhelmingly expressed that they wanted the state to become more conservative... if Joe Straus is willing to make that happen then maybe he would be a fine speaker... if he is going to lead the way he did 2 years ago with lots of Democrats in committee chairmanships and a lackluster agenda then he should probably be replaced because that is not what Texans chose just two weeks ago. I don't know which Joe Straus we will get. I don't know that he has yet adequately indicated which Joe Straus he intends to be... I think he needs to do that with greater specificity and more firmness if he wants to reassure peeps getting heat from constituents.

What I do know is that if 99 Republicans allow 51 Democrats to dictate who the speaker is even though Republicans absolutely have the capacity to make their own choice... and even though the victors choosing the speaker is not unusual at all in Texas or any other system... just because some msm newspaper guy uses a sardonic writing style that belongs in a 1998 episode of Friends to make a tortured point about victors choosing being the Washington way... well... that is not leadership...

Texans didn't vote for bipartisanship or getting along or some mythical Bob Bullock Pete Laney let's all be friends thing (which is incredibly overblown, believe me I was there... it wasn't as friendly and happy go lucky as certain peeps try to make you think). Texans voted for a conservative agenda and to send a message to Obama.

I am not anti Straus or pro Straus and I really don't have an endorsement to make but again these sorts of msm articles and editorials are making me inch away from Straus...

Again I think Straus would do well to stop promoting these really faulty msm ideas and start telling us how he intends to lead if chosen as speaker again... he could end up being a great speaker in 2011 and even perhaps beyond, but not if he lets the editorial boards run his agenda...

Editorial boards going for Straus...

2010-11-18T09:54:00.003-06:00

Given what Rick's peeps taught us about how Republicans view editorial board endorsements I am not sure this is the best strategy, but Straus has basically received the blessing of some big newspapers around the state (link). Excerpt follows...

Chisum too strongly echoes the rural, right-wing Craddick years, but Paxton has tea party street cred and metro-area sensibilities. Normally, this newspaper would lean toward a North Texan, and there's much about the fiscally conservative Paxton to like. Unfortunately, he also opposes the revised franchise tax to help fund public schools and local-option revenue ideas to expand mass transit. He also strays too far toward the punitive in his immigration ideas.

The coming Legislature will require thoughtful solutions on a number of major issues, including a massive budget shortfall estimated at $21 billion or more. Republicans certainly have the numbers in the House to force through a conservative-only agenda, but is that ultimately wise for an entire state? Does one party – or one faction of that party – own a monopoly on good ideas?

We think not. Straus has shown he's a man of his word on giving members a far greater say in how the House operates, and, coming from San Antonio, he's urban in an increasingly urban state. Unquestionably, the House's political center has moved right, just not all the way to the edge.

Straus recognizes this and says he would manage a 99-51 House differently than a 76-74 House. He deserves the chance to prove that.

His critics should remember how it felt to see one ideology dominate Congress the last few years. Texas, thankfully, isn't Washington.

The more of these "Paxton opposes higher taxes, therefore he is not qualified to be speaker" type editorials I read in the newspapers, the more I am inclined to oppose Straus.

Mark Davis on the speakers race in Texas...

2010-11-17T15:49:00.000-06:00

Conservative radio personality Mark Davis is endorsing Ken Paxton (link). Excerpt follows...

Incumbent Joe Straus, the San Antonio Republican, earned the post in 2009 with a small percentage of actual Republican votes, bolstered by wide support from House Democrats, the minority party by a scant two seats.

A centrist speaker can be an expected by-product of a nearly evenly divided body. But the recent election shifted the House makeup to a nearly 2-to-1 GOP majority.

This has led some to call for a more conservative speaker. It also has led Joe Straus to redefine himself.Straus does not seek to redefine his conservatism, which he continues to assert as a follower of icons from Ronald Reagan to John Tower. The change he wants people to notice is his predilection for being a "members' speaker," there to serve broadly astride whatever ideological pie the electorate slices up.

Thus, a Speaker Joe Straus would lead differently with a 99-51 majority than with a 76-74 split.

To some people, this makes solid management sense. To others, it reveals grossly insufficient devotion to core beliefs.

[SNIP]

Chisum and Paxton hope for a caucus among the 99 incoming House Republicans, with the goal of uniting behind a single speaker candidate – and preventing Democrats from dominating the vote as they did in 2009.

With sparse Republican support back then, one might expect Straus to oppose that idea. He told me he does not and expects to receive a majority of Republican support, in addition to "the support of the whole House." (Translation: Nearly every Democrat.)

Is that overconfidence? Can Chisum or Paxton sway enough votes from an incumbent speaker? It may boil down to management styles. Should a speaker be an arbiter and steward reflecting the entire complexion of the House, or a quarterback for his political team, marching its agenda down the field?

I choose B, and I'd say the same if Democrats were in charge. I have spoken to Chisum, and his life story and conservative spine are inspiring. But I have been around Paxton since he won his seat, and I have seen him take to Austin with an energy and commitment that seem like a superb fit for a House teeming with fresh conservative passions.

Straus' detractors occasionally have been too harsh. But it may well be that it's time for a speaker who will assert the will of the majority party, rather than the aggregate tastes of every district.

Haven't we heard endlessly that elections have consequences?

Mark Davis in these things always takes an entire column to get to his point... by the time he endorses Paxton you've almost come to accept that Straus will be speaker again... he did that same thing in the Rick vs. Kay race... sort of praising Kay for several paragraphs then endorsing Rick...

Erick Erickson and RedState keep weighing in on the Texas speakers race...

2010-11-17T15:39:00.000-06:00

RedState is not a fan of Joe Straus (link)...

It is nauseating to hear people tell me over the past 48 hours that Joe Straus, the Democrat backed Speaker of the Texas House, is a “conservative.” With redistricting at stake in a state the size of Texas, we need to come to terms with why Straus is not a conservative and should be defeated. Likewise, Republicans who vote for him will all need to be challenged in primaries.

Yes this is that big of an issue. And yes it is worth taking to the front page of a national political blog to focus on this one man in one state.

The people saying Joe Straus is conservative are the same people who’ve spent the past year trying repeatedly to shut out conservatives in the election and dress up moderates and liberals as conservatives.

It is not going to work.

Anyone who says Joe Straus is a conservative is either a fool or a liar.

I hate to be that blunt, but the truth sometimes must be.

Does a guy in Georgia have sway in Texas legislative politics? Probably somewhat... he is on CNN all the time and does command a Texas presence...

Rick vs. Kay

Internal Turmoil... uh... ya think?

Abby Rapoport is right... Rick should have stuck with his 2010 strategy...

I had a feeling this was the case... Dave Carney wasn't "actively involved in the campaign for quite a while, a few months."

Flurry of new polls sez Rick is the top dog...

Rick and Al Gore...

Rick's masterful entry into the 2012 presidential race...

Is it just me, or has the MSM already gone a little crazy over the possibility of Rick running?

Kay's peeps trying to exact revenge for their shameful primary loss?

More than two years ago Rick made an obvious joke about Texans wanting to leave the union... it is newsworthy now?

Wow... some epic and not to epic videos in support of Rick... all from outside groups...

"IT'S TIME FOR RICK PERRY"

"Jerry Patterson: a Veteran for Rick Perry"

"It's Time for Perry"

"What if? Rick Perry for President 2012"

Everything you ever need to know about Rick...

Rick within a few points of Obama, and he's not even running yet...

Rick's time as a Democrat... like Reagan's?

Bush Peeps vs. Rick Peeps? A Feud? Overblown?

MacKinnon: Don't believe the anonymous chatter about a Perry-Bush feud

2012 watch... Rick beats Michele Bachmann among teapartiers....

Cal Jillson officially jumps the shark... "you can't run for president bashing the national government"

Is Rick running?

New blog on the scene... the race to replace Kay...

Rick the 2012 frontrunner?

Rick standing firm on not tapping the rainy day fund...

Michael Williams wins early straw poll...

Utah senator Mike Lee endorses Ted Cruz...

Rainy Day fund... Rick is against using it... Susan Combs, Jim Pitts are for it...

Tom Leppert off to a terrible start...

Does the Texas Tribune hate David Dewhurst?

Dewcristcare in Texas?

amazon.com, Rick, and Susan Combs... who is right?

CPAC... and Ted Cruz is Canadian?

Kay thinks the blogs are depressing....

Would Dewhurst be vulnerable against John Sharp?

Kay is not running in 2012, let the games begin...

Rick's approval high heading into session...

Good video from National Journal about the EPA versus Texas showdown

How did Rick dominate his elections?

I just wrote a whole long thing on the speakers race...

Rick wins Texan of the Year... from his nemesis the Dallas Morning News...

Prominent Hispanic Republican group praises Rick, bashes Palin...

Another clever anti Straus web video...

Some interesting comments from some of the new freshmen...

Is Aaron Pena switching parties? Allan Ritter already has switched... Republicans have a super majority now... no excuses...

The fake polls come out in the speakers race...

Tea Party 911 looks to "oust RINO Straus"

South Steps...

Kay under fire on the DREAM act...

Joe Straus didn't answer the Texas Alliance for Life's questionnaire...

Rick named the number one Hispanic friendly politician of 2010...

Chuck Norris and Rick...

Prominent Kay supporter supports Ken Paxton over Joe Straus...

The online battle for speaker...

New email from the Peter Morrison report...

Kay is going to be tea partied...

Rick's national profile...

Aaron Peña tries to make Democrats in Texas have a come to Jesus moment...

One of those robot talking video things for the speakers race...

The Weekly Standard calls Rick the most successful governor in America...

Texas "insiders" think Rick is running for president...

The Economist sees Rick as a moderating influence on the strong majority in the legislature...

Joe Straus has a new web video...

Have the holidays stalled the speakers race... frozen it in place?

Grading Politifact... Gardner Selby gets an F....

Corruption?

Ken Herman... a Jewish journalist... argues it is okay to let religion play a role in a political choice...

David Barton weighs in on the Speakers race with a video...

My junk just got felt...

More anti Straus web sites and videos...

Who will succeed Ed Kuempel?

Larry Phillips... vice chairman of the panel investigating... Larry Phillips... recuses himself...

Speakers race in pictures...

Peeps committing to Paxton...

Ken Paxton has a web site now too...

About Joe Straus and that 100% NARAL rating... how fair is that anyway?

Kay's move...

Crushing free speech? What is the story here?

The committee chairman investigating Bryan Hughes' allegations against Joe Straus got 42 thousand dollars from Straus this year...