Tag: 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.

Facebook is at it again.

Imagine my surprise when I found a warning in my FB timeline about a “photo” a friend had shared. I can’t think of anything, EVER, that has been shared with me that had “violent or graphic content”.

Read the POST below (though it was put up as a graphic file format). Just what exactly about it is “violent or graphic content”? NOTHING. It applies to anyone moving anywhere because they like what they saw, and then when they get there, trying to change the new location so it mimics where they came from. That’s reality whether it’s from city to city, state to state, or country to country.

Facebook strikes again.

We don’t want a CAVE. We want a WALL.

This morning, I wrote my congressman and the White House.  You should too.  Here are the web addresses and what I wrote:

The White House
Congressman Michael Cloud (CD-27)
Congressman Michael McCaul (CD-10)

To Congressman Michael Cloud:
Trump can’t cave on this. YOU can’t cave on this. DO NOT vote for a CR that doesn’t include at least 1/2 of what Trump needs for the “wall”. Any rational person knows the “wall” includes technological efforts as well as a physical wall where possible. Any rational person knows Mexico was never going to outright pay for the wall, but the reduction in immigration costs for those coming in through that country would pay for it, an improvement in balance of trade would pay for it…. Republican messaging is horrible and never says that. But, we NEED the wall. TRUMP needs the wall or he’ll lose his base. He’ll be likened to GWB about whom many only remember “Read my lips…” and then HE caved. We voted for Trump to clean that swamp, to do what he says he’ll do, and for you to back him up. I’ll support him, and you, as vociferously as possible if he does what he said he would do. Those of us with children know the most important thing we can do is to MEAN WHAT WE SAY, to DO what we said we would do. TRUST falls if that doesn’t happen. Pelosi and Schumer will run the show from now to 2020 if Trump and the House cave on this. Thank you, and Merry Christmas to all of you.

To President Trump via The White House:
We DO NOT WANT A CAVE. We WANT A WALL. Messaging is critical. Of course a wall isn’t always a physical wall but also a technological wall. Of course Mexico isn’t going to pay outright dollars but through lower costs of illegals entering the US and in balance of trade. Republican messaging stinks, but the FACT is that we need the wall. We need you to STAND STRONG. We voted for you to get something different, your business acumen. Please don’t be GWB who is remembered for “Read my lips…” and then caving. Please!!!

Gotta Love SCOTUS

As a follow-up to yesterday’s post, What a Difference One Vote Makes, today’s announcements by SCOTUS hammer home the point.  I’ll discuss today’s opinion on union dues a bit later, but want to first focus on this: the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy.  Appointed by President Ronald Reagan, Justice Kennedy has served 30 years on the Court and is now 81 years old.

When Donald Trump ran for President, he was assailed by both sides of the aisle about what kind of judges and justices he would appoint.  There was already an opening on the Court with the death of Antonin Scalia and rumors were rampant that Justice Kennedy would retire.  Retirement discussions also included Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is now 85 years young.  Was Donald Trump truly a conservative? Was he a liberal in Republican clothing?

To alleviate these concerns about his judicial appointments, candidate Donald Trump issued a list of 21 potential US Supreme Court appointees.  As President-elect, on November 17, 2017, he reissued the list, which now can be found on Whitehouse.gov.  With so much time to do “opposition research” on each of these individuals, Democrats are likely prepared to go to war over each and every one of them.  It will be interesting to watch.

As for today’s announced decision about mandatory payment of union dues by government employees who are not members of, but are represented by, employee associations or unions, it’s about time!  According to SCOTUSBlog,

In an opinion by Justice Samuel Alito, the court concluded today that the fees violate the First Amendment. No one would doubt, Alito wrote, that the First Amendment bars a state from requiring its residents to “sign a document expressing support for a particular set of positions on controversial public issues.” Requiring someone to pay for speech by someone else also raises First Amendment concerns, Alito noted.

In 2016, SCOTUSblog reveals, “the justices heard oral argument in a challenge by a group of California public-school teachers, but Justice Antonin Scalia died before the court could release its opinion, leaving the eight-member court deadlocked.”

Once again, Justice Neil Gorsuch made the difference, voting with the majority.  Now, these employees will have additional monies in their pockets each month.  They’ll no longer fund a union that doesn’t represent their views.  And, they’ll no longer fund political speech that is diametrically opposed to their own stance on issues, basically funding opposition to themselves.

Diverting Resources Loses Elections

The most qualified candidate for a position can easily lose an election by running a poorly planned campaign, by losing focus, or by letting the opposition distract or divert attention to things that don’t matter to the outcome of the race.

A perfect example of this is happening right now in Bastrop County.

Bastrop Democrats

Early voting for a critical special election starts in just a few days, but the Republican chair-elect has spent her time over the past few weeks with the Democrats, planning a joint fundraiser for a local civic group. On May 19, while the Republican Chair-elect was at a CEC meeting convincing Republicans to do a joint fundraiser with the Democrats, Democrats were on the bridge in Bastrop publicly supporting their candidates.
While support for local organizations is a worthy endeavor, the number one priority of a political organization is to win elections, and winning takes time and money. 

It’s sad, but apparent, that the possibility of giving the Democrats two opportunities in two months to defeat our Republican candidate doesn’t matter to Bastrop Republican leadership. They’d rather fraternize with the Democrats than defeat them.

With such a short window before early voting in the CD27 Special Election, this wasn’t the time to divert Republican resources away from Get Out The Vote (GOTV) efforts. We’ve yet to see any Bastrop County Republican Party emails or postal mails regarding the June 30 Special Election, the impact of this special election on the November general election, or the candidates involved.

I am fully supportive of raising money and awareness for local civic groups. A cursory review of my bio shows a long history of civic engagement. But right now, Republicans should be laser focused on GOTV efforts to win the CD27 Special Election with more than 50% of the vote.

If our primary winner, Michael Cloud, doesn’t get over 50% of the vote and is forced into a September runoff, it gives CD27 Democrats two chances to defeat him in a two month time span.  It’s sad, but apparent, that the possibility of giving the Democrats two opportunities in two months to defeat our Republican candidate doesn’t matter to Bastrop Republican leadership. They’d rather fraternize with the Democrats than defeat them.