Replies

One of my problems with Theresa Doggett Taylor is that to me she comes across as very nice, friendly and glib but also lacking in depth. That is, I've never heard her say anything of real substance in her stump speehes. It's all feel-goodism to me. I felt that going back to 1994 when she ran against David Hartman in the primary for comptroller and latest campaign is the same. A case in point is her flyer, which says she stands for " 1. Education accountability. 2. Support the commander-in-chief and the troops. 3. Love and respect for family, community, and our country". Great non-specific stuff. And what does the pro-family stuff mean, when she divorced John Doggett? With her personality and resume, she's been good to run against "the other Doggett" but I wouldnt want to squander a sure-to-be-GOP district on anyone who wasnt a surefire articulate ADVOCATE FOR CONSERVATISM. And yet her card doesnt mention the word "Conservative".

At first I wasnt too impressed with McCaul either, but he's got a few good endorsements (Joe Pojman of Texas Alliance for Life) and got smart enough to call himself a conservative. Still, the claims of leading the fight against terrorism are a bit of resume-inflation. He was in the DoJ.

John Devine is saying pretty much what I would say if I were running: Lower taxes and less spending, no to illegal immigration and enforce immigration law, education choice, etc. He says he is a "conservative leader". at least he is announcing and articulating that he is a conservative. It seems he won the debate that was in Brenham on Feb 3rd (see his website).

When Teresa ran against Lloyd, I had some concerns over her convictions on certain issues, but she was a lot better than the alternative. Now we have a chance to get a strong conservative to represent us.

I have heard that McCaul has better connections(Cornyn) and his style would fit in better with Congress if that is what you are looking for. I would like to hear more explanation about his role in the DOJ.

I have a good friend who did a pro-life commercial for Streusand but there are still some conflicting information from others that I've heard.

Devine appears to have the most conviction and has a past record to prove it. Some see this as an indication that he won't play the horse-trading game.

Tashenberg's and Phillips mailouts show a willingness to take a stand on certain social issues. I haven't heard much about the others.

I organized that Brenham debate. Though Devine won the audience vote, he also had a large contingency of supporters in tow who skewed the vote. I spoke with the Brenham High School speech and drama teacher, Andy Hart, and asked his opinion as to who won. Andy came to the same conclusion I did. Devine was great in terms of style, but McCaul was superior in substance, and Elliott had the best summation. I support McCaul. The reason he can claim to be a terrorist watchdog is that his last assignment in DOJ under our current president was to oversee the Western District of Texas as Chief of Counterterrorism, protecting our border with Mexico and the Crawford Ranch. Michael is very conservative. He is pro-life (endorsed by Texas Alliance for Life as you noted), pro-gun (he’s close to getting the endorsement of Wayne Lapierre of the NRA), anti-IRS (in favor of a consumption tax). I look for something in a candidate that goes beyond politics. I look for character. Michael is a man who will look you in the eye, give you a firm handshake, and tell you what he believes, not necessarily what he thinks you want to hear. I trust the man. Because of my position as a leader in Washington County Republican politics, every candidate solicited my support. I met each candidate. I heard two debates. Then I decided. Michael is coming to Brenham to Republican HQ Thursday, March 4, 2-4pm at 2125 S. Market St., next to Brenham Corral Restaurant. He’s coming back to Brenham on Sunday with Senator John Cornyn at 3PM at a site to be determined. Michael is the real deal.