campaign – Carol A. Spencer

Thin Skinned

Politics is not for the faint-of-heart. Anyone who has run for office, or served in office, knows that. We’re all very opinionated and most of us, passionately so. Those who don’t agree with their representatives often come out with guns blazing (not literally, just verbally). It’s just the way it is. The elected official can engage in the gun-fire with nasty retorts, or step back and invite discussion. What the elected official cannot be is thin-skinned and defensive.

Sadly, our current House member, Stan Gerdes, has demonstrated that he is both thin-skinned and defensive. In 2022, he was asked at multiple GOP meetings whether he supported Dems as committee chairs in the Texas House. Notwithstanding Republicans being strongly in the majority, he supported Dem chairs (video at 6:13). Those of us who worked hard to get Republicans elected felt betrayed. And, we told him so.

In 2024, we’ve again said “No Dem Chairs” and once again, he is supporting a House Speaker who lost the Republican Caucus vote and who will appoint Dem chairs.

Republican committee chairs are critical to passing TexasGOP legislative priority bills. This is important enough that the TexasGOP sent a mailer to Bastrop County Republicans asking them to call Gerdes’ office and “tell him to oppose Dustin Burrows and support the Texas House GOP Caucus Nominee David Cook!”

Then, the Bastrop County GOP passed a resolution calling “on Representative Stan Gerdes to publicly commit to supporting the Texas House Republican Caucus nominee in accordance with the Caucus vote and with the Republican Party of Texas Platform”. Seems reasonable.

That resolution also explained that:

“A vote against the Texas House Republican Caucus nominee shall be considered a censurable act”; and
“subversive tactics such as denying a quorum or participating (sic) in absenteeism that causes a quorum to come into question […] shall be considered a censurable act”; and
“a vote for a House Speaker secret floor ballot vote, will be interpreted as an attempt to hide a vote with Democrats who want Democrat Chairs […] and shall be considered a censurable act”; and
“a vote […] for any other candidate who has not pledged publicly, prior to the floor vote, to comply with the Legislative Priorities of “No Democrat Chairs” shall constitute a censurable act.”

Stan Gerdes was not censured. The elected Republican precinct chairs simply expressed their opinions and what they expected from their Republican House member.

Precinct chairs are elected to be the voice of the Republican Party. Gerdes was elected to represent House District 17. These are very different constituencies.

Gerdes can stick to his position supporting Democrat chairs and do what he believes is in the best interest of his constituents. But, as with every decision an elected official makes, there are consequences to those decisions. And, the Bastrop County Republican Party has made clear what those consequences will be. Seems reasonable.

Rather than throw verbal bombs on Facebook at Republican Party leadership, a mature, seasoned elected official would either invite precinct chairs to a meeting or personally call each one, building bridges. He would not whine because he wasn’t invited to the meeting where the resolution was passed. He would not call candidates who ran against him three years ago “vengeful”. He wouldn’t worry about a candidate that spent under $20,000 in a campaign cycle when he, himself, spent over half a million. He would not call the Republican Chair a liar. He would not send threatening texts. He would not make unfounded accusations and name-call publicly on social media.

I sure as heck hope this isn’t the way he treats his fellow legislators when they disagree with him. And, if, as I hear repeatedly, Stan Gerdes wants to run for Congress or some other higher office, he needs to get thicker skin. He needs to immediately start building bridges not burning them down.

Freedom Released

A lot more than re-electing Donald Trump happened as a result of Tuesday’s election. Freedom was released! You can feel it, hear it, see it in just two days.

I’ve been out and about in Bastrop, keeping my Trump “Fight. Fight. Fight.” hood cover on my car and still wearing my Trump gear. No one whispered their like of my shirt or car decoration. In fact, they were forthright, open, smiling, chatting, and acknowledging out loud their support of Trump. They openly acknowledged their feeling that we finally have our country back. They seemed to breathe a collective sigh of relief that they can express opinions again with out fear of being cancelled, of being fired, of being denigrated… in just two days.

Donald J. Trump was right every time he said “They’re coming after you. I’m just standing in their way.” And, “They want to silence me because I will never let them silence you.” And, now, there he stands strongly and proudly with plans to prevent them from silencing us…. in just two days.

The proof will be “in the pudding”, as they say. Personnel matters. Who he chooses to make this happen at the Executive level of government matters. But surrounding himself with Elon Musk who proved his commitment to open discourse with his purchase and privatization of Twitter, with RFK Jr who proved his commitment to a healthy population, is a good start. Putting strong people in place who are committed to the job they’re about to do is critical to the success of this administration, and to our freedom, now released.

The Way it Should Be

Yesterday, November 2, 2024, just 3 days before Election Day, we held another one of our pop-up rallies. We had already done them in Smithville and Elgin, so it was Bastrop’s turn. Where else but the beautiful and iconic Bastrop Bridge? We met at 9 and started our flag waving.

Shortly thereafter, we were greeted by a Bastrop police officer who told us that (1) we needed a permit if more than 4 or 5 of us were going to stand in one place, and (2) we needed to stay on the protected side of the barrier. Not being our first pop-up on this very bridge, we knew we did not need a permit (it’s a public sidewalk) and we also knew we could not block that sidewalk and could not venture into the road. After some discussion, everything was settled and we resumed our flag waving to very receptive passers-by.

About an hour later, a huge number of Democrats arrived, probably 50 – 70. Most ventured down to the other end of the bridge. A few decided to surround us by staying where we were. The attempt to intimidate was, frankly, funny. There were only 8 of us.

Pretty much everyone was pleasant. We exchanged “good mornings” and our joy at the cloudy day versus the hot sun burning down on us. A few were obnoxious as they passed us by, made snide comments, but we just ignored them and kept waving our flags.

The vehicle response was tremendous. Just like at our other pop-ups, the ratio of thumbs up to thumbs down was probably 50 to 1.

Sign in the road Later in the morning, after taking a much needed break, we drove across the bridge. People in the road There was a huge campaign sign and multiple people in the breakdown lane and probably 15+ sitting on the barrier swinging their legs on the traffic side. Very, very dangerous. Had anyone slipped, they’d have fallen into traffic. Had those been our folks, I would have immediately told them they needed to be out of the road and behind the barrier. But they weren’t. So, yes, I admit it, I called the police to ensure everyone’s safety. The police arrived and politely asked everyone to be behind the barrier and safety returned.

Republicans and Democrats CAN get along! But, apparently, someone wants to stir the pot. Someone has started rumors that there was some altercation between the Dems and the Republicans. Fake news. Just not true.

For me personally, I have many friends and family members who are Democrats. In fact, this summer one of my favorite Dems attended the Trump rally in Wilkes-Barre PA with me. We had a blast.

Yesterday was one of the best examples of how people can support the candidate(s) of their choice and do it in one location. Again, my opinion, but I like seeing people out and active, not sitting at home and doing nothing but complain. Perhaps the photo at left will help everyone remember that we’re all Americans first and foremost. Thanks to everyone for a wonderful day!

VOTE

Texas offers a lot of opportunities to vote. We have early voting for 2 weeks. Of course, we have election day voting. We have mail-in voting for those over 65 and out of county or state during the election season. We have overseas voting for both military and ex-pats. And, for those who cannot get into the polling place safely, we have curbside voting.

There are no excuses for not voting.

It’s a simple thing to do: express your opinion. Most of us do that at every opportunity. So why don’t people vote? Some think it doesn’t matter, but we’ve seen slim margins in so many races lately, it’s hard to believe people still think their vote doesn’t count.

I think that it’s just that people get busy with their every day lives and forget. I heard just a few days ago that 20% of those who say they’re going to vote on Election Day itself, don’t vote.

So, I got a voter registration list for my precinct. I sorted it by those who voted in the 2020 or 2024 GOP primary. Here in Texas, the list of daily voters is published on the Secretary of State’s website. So, I printed the primary voter list and, if they voted already, I crossed them off the list.

I sent a post card to each voter reminding them to early vote.

Results? Just shy of 50% of those people voted in the next 3 days.

Today, those who still haven’t voted are getting another card to remind them that Tuesday is their last chance.

Let’s hope this works to get out the vote. The future of our country is determined by those who vote. If you stay home because politics isn’t your “thing” or you’re disgusted with the tone of discourse, you have no right to complain if things don’t go the way you had hoped. VOTE!

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 Crowley Why 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

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 conservative But, 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.

Candidates 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.