Category: republican

Are you a voter or a lemming?

Is a list of endorsements from an organization an end point for you or a starting point? Do you vote in a primary from a list provided by one organization or do you research endorsements from several organizations and see where they overlap? Do you do your own research?

Bunni Pounds from Christians Engaged has great advice. Read below or watch this clip.

“In 20 minutes you can research your ballot and go in much more prepared than anybody else. Look at the races. Look at their Facebook pages. Look at their website. Read out of their own mouth what they say about their qualifications. Check out their resumes. Google their names. See who else is supporting them in your community. See if they answer some of the questions that are important to you about these non-partisan races. And, then check around people in your communities to see who they are supporting and why. […] Check out public forums and anything they are hosting to get to know the candidates in your city.”

  • Did the organization print a transcript, or at least a summary, of the interviews with the candidates on which they based their recommendations?
  • Did they ask the candidates for written answers to a common set of questions and publish those answers?
  • If they didn’t interview a candidate, did they tell you that?
  • If they have an affiliation or prior business relationship with a candidate, were they transparent enough to tell you that?
  • If one candidate is a member of their organization and the other is not, do they reveal that?
  • Did they provide any rationale at all for why they chose one candidate over the others?

Never be a lemming. Just because this group or that says “vote for our list of candidates” or worse yet, “take our list to the polls with you”, that’s not what you should do in a primary, runoff, or uniform (May non-partisan) election.

Expect information. Better yet, demand information or refuse to be a lemming. Your vote is yours, not theirs.

Read Between the Lines

People collect things. I collect campaign literature. I have campaign literature going back probably 30 years. Some is good; some is awful; some is clever; some really, really boring. Some has colors that are just atrocious. Some was done with nary a thought for the low-vision user. Some is just evidence the candidate doesn’t know what they’re doing, or worse, why they’re running.

Campaign literature is sales literature. The candidate is selling you on why they’d be the best in the position. Here are my four rules when it’s campaign time: Don’t be fooled or swayed by photographs in the mailers; Know what the candidate can and cannot do in office; Read carefully; Find and research the legally required “paid for by”.

Rule #1: Don’t be fooled or swayed by photographs in the mailers.

Some candidates use photos of themselves with their families or children. Why? To tug at your heart strings… “Oh isn’t that cute!” Cute isn’t what you need from an elected official. Candidates need conviction and back-bone. They need to be strong, not sway the way the wind blows. They don’t need to be cute.

Carol Spencer with Monica CrowleyWhy do some of them use photos with famous elected officials? To make you think that person supports their candidacy. But do they? This is Monica Crowley and me a few years ago at a GOP event. Having a photo with her didn’t mean she endorsed my candidacy. The same is true of photos with Kellyanne Conway, Rudy Guiliani, Sarah Palin, Ken Paxton, Sid Miller, Governor Abbott and so many others with whom I’ve been photographed over the years. Photos with famous politicos, unless accompanied by the words “Endorsed by [name of person in photo]”, should be interpreted as manipulative, meant to make the candidate look important or to make the reader think that person has endorsed the candidate.

A list of endorsements by others, but not the person in the photo, when used together is pure deception. Back to top

Rule #2: Know what the candidate can and cannot do in office.

Someone running for a legislative position cannot do anything without a majority vote of the body in which they serve (city council, TX House, TX Senate, US House, US Senate). They cannot fix the border or cut government spending. And usually, the executive (mayor, governor, president) has to sign any passed legislation to make it law.

Someone running for an executive position can only do that which the charter or constitution allows. And, a great deal of what is allowed requires a vote of the legislative body: budgets, capital spending for example.

This is called “checks and balances”.

When an incumbent running for re-election says they accomplished this or that, no they didn’t. They cast one vote for legislation to make that happen. Perhaps they swayed colleagues to do the same. But in the end, without a majority vote and a supportive executive, nothing they support will ever come to pass.

And, remember what position they’re running for… a mayor cannot close the border, fund medicare or fix social security issues. A congressman can’t get local roads paved. Back to top

Rule #3: Read carefully

Beware the use of “conservative”. Does a true conservative support Democrat chairs in the legislature? Does a true conservative celebrate being endorsed by staunch Democrats? Does a conservative group endorse candidates who previously voted Democrat?

There’s a big difference between “voted to close the border” and “closed the border” but you’ll see both on campaign literature.

“Most experienced” is something else you’ll often see. If you don’t know what the requirements of the position include, how will you evaluate “most experienced”? If the person has always been a chief executive, but is running for a legislative position, that person probably does not have the requisite experience. A chief executive calls the shots. A legislator must count votes for bill passage and must sway a majority to his/her line of thinking. These are very different skill sets. Back to top

Rule #4: Find and research the legally required “paid for by”

All campaign advertisements must include who paid for them. This is critical to know. Did the candidate (well, actually, the candidate’s donors) pay for the mailer? Did some PAC (political action committee) pay for it?

If a PAC paid for it, ask yourself what that PAC expects to get for the expenditure of funds. Mailers are very expensive: design, printing, mailing costs. A county-wide GOP mailer can easily cost $5,000.

Do an online search for the PAC itself and see what it’s about. Go to OpenSecrets.org for Federal PACs and see who else got money from that PAC. Go to Texas Ethics Commission (TEC) for State PACs.

This is also true of the various emails requesting money. Where’s it going? Watch carefully. Sometimes something will appear to be for a candidate, but the money you donate is going elsewhere. Be careful! Back to top

The Value (or not) of Endorsements

Candidates love to share their endorsements. Why? They believe you’ll find a name among that list that you admire, and thus will vote for that candidate.

But should you? My husband, who has also been involved in the political world for many, many years, says “Endorsements are only good on the back of a check.” I agree.

What difference does it make if a beloved former (or current) governor or legislator, or well-known local, endorses a current candidate? That “former (or current)” or “well-known” won’t be serving in office. They don’t vote. The candidate, once an officerholder, does.

Will that former or current elected official, or well-known local, have significant influence over the actions and votes of the candidate? Will that endorser’s influence exceed that of the voters? Yes, it will. And, if campaign contributions flow from that endorser, my “yes” is iron-clad.

Endorsements ListDon’t be awed by endorsements. Rather, ask yourself, “If that endorser opposed a measure I support, who’s opinion would the candidate (now officeholder) weigh more heavily?” When it comes to a vote and the chips are down, if donations are involved, the endorser wins, the voters lose. It’s rarely the other way around.

The TX House vote to impeach Ken Paxton is but one example. All but 5 Republicans who took money from Dade Phelan voted to impeach: 49 of them. Did that accurately reflect the wishes of their constituents? Not likely.

Another example: Let’s say managing excessive growth is your highest priority (as it is for many in Bastrop County). Along comes a candidate’s literature stating that they are endorsed by major residential and commercial developers or a law firm that makes a good deal of its money from representing developers or a real estate PAC or an entity with which they have a business relationship.

Once in office, will that candidate vote with the wishes of his/her constituents or the endorser? What if that endorser helped fund the campaign? You know the answer.

The only caveat in this is if you research the endorser’s background or votes during his/her term of office and find you’re majorly in agreement with the endorser’s stands on current issues. But you must do that research specifically regarding current issues. I repeat: current issues. A good example of this is a Trump endorsement.

It means nothing if you agreed with that endorser’s stand on the war in Iraq, but disagree with his/her current stand on school choice, casino gambling, water, immigration or any other issue facing the county or state.

And remember, current elected officials who endorse often have their own agendas: which candidate can or will help me the most when I run for re-election or which candidate is likely to win, making me look like a winner?

The only endorsement worth anything is that of the voters, your endorsement. You have the power. Don’t be swayed by a list of allegedly important names.

Conservative? Maybe not.

Online Research Often Exposes The Truth.

MAGA matters and those running for office know it. That’s why candidates, mostly Republican but frankly of both parties, claim to be “conservative”.

Football player tossing a football labeled conservativeBut, voter beware. Just because they say they’re conservative, they aren’t. They easily toss around the word “conservative” knowing that low-information voters are swayed by it. So, become a high-information voter using online resources!

They hope you don’t do your homework. I hope you do. There are many places to get information about a candidate. Campaign literature and websites are not places to go except to learn what the candidate wants you to know. To get to the truth, you must do some research.

Watch what they do, not what they say. I’ve said this for a long time about candidates, something I’ve learned through my 35+ years involved in political campaigns. People can say anything, but they can’t change the record.

Candidates can modify their social media posts, but few are likely to do that unless their comments become big news. Think of candidates and/or office holders that have been caught by salacious or offensive posts. You can learn a lot by a quick scan of someone’s posts. If they’re on X (formerly known as Twitter), that’s the best place to take a quick scan.

Texas Ethics Commission Search graphicCandidates and office holders likely have to file financial reports with either the local election office or the Texas Ethics Commission or the Federal Elections Commission. Visit BastropVotes for local candidates. Visit the Texas Ethics Commission for district, judicial, or statewide candidates. Texas Ethics also has contributor information about Texas Political Action Committees (PACs). Visit the Federal Elections Commission for all federal candidates. A non-governmental source to “follow the money” is opensecrets.org where you can search by candidate, committee, or by donor. Open Secrets also has information about “dark money” groups, Super PACs and more.

If a candidate is an incumbent, their votes will tell you whether they’re actually a conservative or not. For Texas legislators, Texas Legislature Online is chock full of information. For a Texas legislative ranking, visit Mark Jones’ analysis in the Texas Tribune or The Freedom Index where individual legislators can be searched. For US Congressmen & Senators, visit FreedomWorks for an analysis of their voting records.

For example, my Texas legislator received one 50% ranking. How good is that? Prior to casting my vote, I’ll compare it to other rankings and any opponents. My US Representative has a session ranking of 100%, and a lifetime ranking of 94.4%. I doubt any opponent can beat that!

For those running the first time, keep an eye on their financial reports. “Follow the money” is always true in politics. Search online, especially LinkedIn for bios which will include volunteer and employment histories.

Always look at a candidate’s past voter history. See if it’s published on one of your local GOP club websites. If you can’t find it online, then ask your local GOP chair for the information.

If you can find the name of a candidate’s treasurer or campaign chair, search them as well. People typically take these roles for candidates who are like-minded and who the treasurer and chair want in office. You won’t find too many Republicans serving as campaign chairs or treasurers for liberal democrats, and vice versa.

Your vote is critical to the survival of our nation. If you, like me, consider yourself a conservative and vote accordingly, then do your job. Do your homework. Know before you go!

The Man Who Would be King

There are those who choose to work together cooperatively. Typically, those are people who have a goal and understand that others share that same goal. They understand that it takes many ideas and many hands to achieve the goal. They are inclusive, good listeners, and incorporate others’ ideas into a strategic plan. And, they understand that those working for the goal all have talents that are needed to achieve the goal, like individual puzzle pieces creating an entire picture.

Then there are those who want to control everything. To these types of people, having control is as important as (or more important than) accomplishing the goal. They want to pick the players and control the strategy. They will determine, on their own, the road to take to achieving the goal. They will exclude free thinkers, new ideas, and different ways of looking at the steps needed to accomplish the goal. To them, power is everything.

In the end, king-makers fail, just as in the Rudyard Kipling novella and 1975 movie of the same name “The Man Who Would be King”.

Political leaders often fall into these categories as well. There are those who are quite willing to work together with other political organizations to achieve the common goal: winning elections. They understand “strength in numbers” and that everyone has something to offer, some talent in which they excel.

Then there are those who refuse to work cooperatively, sometimes to the point of attempting to sabotage and snuff out related groups working for the same goal.

We call individuals who do this bullies. We identify them as insecure people who are threatened by others’ successes. We say they don’t “play well in the sandbox”. The same can be true of organizations. As Patrick Henry so well stated in 1799, “Let us trust God, and our better judgment to set us right hereafter. United we stand, divided we fall.”

The unfortunate result of this refusal to work together, especially in the political world, is disharmony, distrust, dissension. Participants become disillusioned and stop participating. When that happens, the goal becomes unachievable. In the political world, that translates to losses at the polls.

As in the Bible, Matthew 12:25, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand.”

As per the novella and movie, “The Man Who Would be King” won’t recognize that until it’s too late and the opposing political party has seized control.

The SREC Speaks

I’ve been watching this weekend’s SREC meeting (9/23/23). They just voted on a resolution calling for Speaker Dade Phelan to step down as Speaker and to resign. There were only 2 “nay” votes.

Sad to say, one was our SD-5 member, Bill Fairbrother. I submit that had he talked to the various county parties before casting that vote, he would have found nearly all in agreement that Phelan should step down.

WHEREAS, Speaker Dade Phelan voted for the impeachment of Attorney General Warren Kenneth Paxton and through his leadership team pressured other House members to vote for the impeachment as well, and continues to defend this action despite the weaknesses of the case as demonstrated in the Senate trial that resulted in General Paxton’s acquittal;

WHEREAS, Speaker Dade Phelan appointed nine (9) Democrats to chair important legislative committees, in direct defiance of the wishes of Republican voters and the Legislative Priorities of the Republican Party of Texas; and

WHEREAS, Speaker Dade Phelan ignored or actively undermined several GOP priorities during the regular session, failing to prioritize legislation to secure our borders and elections; and

WHEREAS, new leadership is needed in the House of Representatives for the upcoming special session, and potential subsequent special sessions, to ensure that conservative priorities are achieved and members are no longer pressured to act and vote contrary to the platform, principles, and priorities of the Party they represent and its voters; now

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Republican Party of Texas calls on Speaker Dade Phelan to step down from his leadership role as Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives, and to allow a new Speaker to be elected after a caucus vote in accordance with the Republican Party of Texas Platform; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that should Speaker Dade Phelan fail to step down from the Speaker chair for this upcoming special session, the Republican representatives should vote to vacate the chair and allow for a new Speaker who has pledged to honor and support the priorities and principles of the Republican Party to be elected.

Conservative? In Name Only

This is shocking! While conservative groups and talk show hosts, including FreedomWorks and Tucker Carlson, are busy informing the public about the dangers of ESG investing and encouraging people to “put their money where their mouth is”, the Bastrop County Conservatives are doing just the opposite.

They’ve denounced a similarly named Instagram account because posts on that account dared to suggest that people should do just that: not spend their money at businesses that don’t share their values. (Article in the Austin Stateman: https://www.statesman.com/story/news/local/bastrop/2022/08/17/bastrop-conservatives-denounce-calls-for-boycotts-of-pride-events/65404135007/)

The Back Story

On Wednesday, August 10, a release was issued under the name of the Bastrop County Conservatives regarding a name confusion on Instagram.

The August 10 release stated “Mel Cooper, one of the founding members of Bastrop County Conservatives, stated ‘The statements posted on this other Instagram account were not from our group and do not conform with our views or values.'” [emphasis added]

What were those postings that were so offensive that they required a press release?

See for yourself: instagram.com/bastroptxconservatives (no instagram account required to see them).

They are pro-life, anti-mask mandates, pro-constitutional carry, pro-GOP, against the Drag Story Hour held in Bastrop and supported by Bastrop Dems, pro-Trump, anti-liberals.

While Cooper says these don’t conform with the views and values of his group, they do conform to planks of the recently adopted GOP platform.

Apparently people agree with them because that Instagram account has more than 1,100 people following it. Cooper’s group? 50.

Why the divisiveness? What’s to gain by publicly fighting over a name in the social space? And, which posts are so offensive they “do not conform with [Cooper’s] views or values”?

Do Cooper and crew support mandatory union dues allowing unions to donate massive amounts to woke Dem candidates? Cooper’s anti-boycott stance in support of spending money at businesses that diametrically oppose one’s views and values is no different.

The only logical conclusion is the conservative group that issued the press release isn’t so conservative after all.