Category: elections

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.

Stuck between a rock and a hard place

HD-17 House member Stan Gerdes has been a constant supporter of former House Speaker Dade Phelan and now his think-alike Dustin Burrows. Both either got, or are attempting to get, elected as House Speaker by courting a majority Democrat vote.

Republicans will control the Texas House with 88 of 150 members. Last session, the Paxton-impeachers (including Gerdes) and those who worked to stall Republican legislative priorities had the Speakership. The Phelan Speakership was obtained with Democrat votes in a House with a similar party split: 86R, 64D.

Burrows, with Gerdes support, seeks to do the same thing in 2025. If he can get those 64 Dems to back him, he only needs 12 Republicans to win the Speakership. But, by rule, Republicans are committed to vote for the Caucus choice. If they don’t, what a slap to Republicans who worked hard for them.

Don’t believe any text messages or comments saying Burrows does not support Democrat chairs. He says he’ll support the members making the rules. But if a majority of Dems vote for him as speaker, they will also vote for rules that give them chairmanships. So, Burrows can waffle all he wants in his commentary about rules, but the bottom line is that if we get a speaker elected with more Democrat votes than Republican votes, we’ll have Dem chairs, thwarting the will of Republicans across Texas.

Gerdes appeared in all the lists of supporting votes for Dade Phelan until Phelan dropped out. (His mentor, Rick Perry, was hired as an advisor to Dade Phelan in September.) Then Gerdes’ name appeared in all the support lists for replacement Dustin Burrows. Gerdes was one of the “walk-outs” on December 7 when Burrows didn’t win the Republican caucus vote to be the next speaker. He has yet to state his support for the choice of the Republican caucus: David Cook.

Rumor has it that Gerdes (with Perry support) is eyeing higher office.

Congressman Michael Cloud co-signed a letter stating “We urge you to stand with the Texas House Republican Majority and support the Texas House Republican Caucus nominee for Speaker.”

Gov Abbott (who endorsed Gerdes for re-election based on his pro-school choice vote) recently posted on X “I worked this entire year to elect conservative candidates who will pass conservative laws, including school choice. To achieve that goal we need a Texas House Speaker chosen by a majority of Republicans in accordance with the Republican Caucus Rules.”

TexasGOP Chairman Abraham George has called for all House Republicans to support the choice of the Caucus. And, on Saturday, the Bastrop County CEC will meet to decide if they’ll sign on to a letter urging House Republicans to support the will of the Caucus, a letter already signed by over 100 GOP Chairs.

So, does Gerdes heed the advice of conservative Michael Cloud and support the will of the Republican caucus and Republican voters, or does he support Democrat chairs? Does Gerdes heed the advice of Gov Abbott and support the will of the Republican caucus and Republican voters, or does he support Democrat chairs? Does Gerdes support the voices of his constituents and the GOP, or does he support Democrats in power? Will Gerdes stay loyal to Perry and those who join with Democrats to thwart the will of Republican voters?

It seems Stan Gerdes has put himself between a rock and a hard place. We’ll see where his loyalty lies on January 14.

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 roadLater in the morning, after taking a much needed break, we drove across the bridge. People in the roadThere 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!

Sloppy Government

I’m shocked at the sloppiness in how the City of Bastrop conducts business. And, sloppy government = closed government. Is the sloppiness just incompetence or is it purposefully being used to confuse the public and deter their participation?

I started watching the City of Bastrop Council machinations when three of them (a voting majority) started down the path of demanding the mayor’s resignation, accusing him of all manner of wrong-doing.

Though more than 20 years ago, I remember very vividly when my political opponents manipulated people, angry about a state-mandated housing development, to demand my resignation. In my case, it made good press, but they couldn’t even muster the signatures on a petition. And, the woman who so vociferously pontificated at that meeting ended up the one in trouble. She was a Board of Education member and failed to note that she was not representing them when she spoke. She was formally reprimanded.

So this attack on Lyle really piqued my interest. For the most part, I know the players and who is connected with whom in the political world. I have a pretty good idea who is seeking power and control. Most people don’t see the back story so they’re easy to sway with twisted allegations of misuse of funds.

I have read every investigative report. I’ve done my own research into the organization involved. I attended hearings and Council meetings about the massive Gateway development and rezoning requested. I’ve read agenda packets, including the details of ordinances and contracts. I was at the Ethics hearing. I watched the Charter Commission meetings. I’ve watched Council meetings online, sometimes multiple times. I’ve written a couple of letters to the Council and testified at public hearings.

I could write an entire chapter of a book, full of examples of sloppy government. But, let’s take the most recent one: getting Charter changes to the November ballot for public vote.

To get something to the ballot, the final step is the Council passing an ordinance calling for an election, including the specific verbiage and details of when and where the election will be held. If the Council wishes for the County to run the election in conjunction with the other elections it runs, the City Council must sign a contract with the County.

For the November election, the statutory deadline for all of that to be approved was August 19, 2024. The Council called a Special meeting that very day. Nothing like waiting to the last minute. Sloppy.

Ordinances must have a first reading and a second reading before adoption. Agendas must be published online no later than 72 hours before a meeting. The public must be given the opportunity to speak on ordinances.

How can the public do that if the ordinance isn’t presented until the meeting itself? See August 19 agenda, item 3B staff report, “Ordinance language will be presented at the meeting on Monday.” Sloppy.

Not the first time I’ve seen this language on a staff report included in a City of Bastrop Council agenda.

Sloppy or purposeful? How can the public comment on an ordinance for FINAL adoption that it hasn’t seen? Why doesn’t the Council demand that agenda items are ready for Friday presentation to the public? And, shouldn’t the Council want time to read through that which it’s voting on a few days later?

Item 3A on August 19 was about putting Charter changes on the November 5 ballot. The dates/times/locations for the election were all wrong. What’s to say the language in the 3B ordinance, not yet written, wouldn’t also be wrong? Turns out, it was.

I pointed this out to a Council member. Not one word about it from the dais during the meeting. In fact, a review of the video and minutes from the August 19 meeting show that the Council never actually took a vote to call an election for the work of the Charter commission. They never even discussed the ordinance. They only discussed each Charter change. Thus, they missed the statutory deadline for calling an election. Sloppy.

But, who cares about a silly ordinance being correct and passed on time? Fast forward to the August 28 meeting.

The Council “ratified” a re-written ordinance, one completely different from the August 19 ordinance. And, guess what? Yes, again the dates/times/locations of early voting were wrong. And, again, I notified them of the errors, this time, in writing to the entire Council.

Yet, no discussion from the dais of correcting that information. If they fixed it before the vote, how would the public know? We wouldn’t, and we don’t. If they didn’t fix it before the vote, so what? Who cares what an ordinance says?

The City Secretary’s excuse? Locations change so we’re adding a note that they change. While that’s true, the correct data had been on BastropVotes.org for weeks. Whoever wrote this ordinance took the 15 election day polling places and erroneously put them in the ordinance as the early voting locations. Sloppy.

Did any official review the ordinance, any Council member, the City attorney, the City Manager, the City Secretary? Anyone? No, it took a member of the public to point it out. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.

This Council needs to get its act together. It needs to pay more attention to detail. It needs to acknowledge that members of the public aren’t there to watch a movie, but are there to participate in their government.

This Council needs to remember that the point of the Texas Open Meetings Act is so government “of the people, by the people, and for the people” functions in favor of citizens, not highly-paid managers and their cronies. It’s their job to protect and enforce open government, not allow it through accidental or intended sloppiness to function in darkness.

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