Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

TX Primary Analysis (How RINO Gov. Perry nominated a Democrat environmental wacko to our courts)
email release | 3/12/04 | David Rogers

Posted on 03/11/2004 10:43:27 PM PST by GOPcapitalist

Analysis of Third Court district voting results Smith / Green /Pemberton In the 3rd Court of Appeals area, three candidates for appellate courts were endorsed by Rick Perry, and two won.

The loser was Ernest Garcia. Why?

The one candidate on whose behalf Gov. Perry was most active was Paul William Green, who defeated Justice Steven Wayne Smith for the Supreme Court. The candidate who beat Ernest Garcia was William Paul "Bill" Green.

William Paul Green is a long-time Democrat and environmentalist whose commitment to the environment is so strong he rides a bus or bicycles to work rather than drive. Paul William Green is a 10-year San Antonio Appeals judge.

Paul Green out-spent Smith by a three-to-one margin. Garcia outspent Bill Green more than thirty-to-one. Pemberton out-spent his opponent by a similar margin.

Yet the results were strikingly different.

Not surprisingly, Paul Green won the majority of the counties - 14 of the 24 -- in the Third Court district. Bill Green won 22 of 24 counties. Pemberton won only 8 counties, but won populous Bell and Travis by large enough margins to carry the day.

Paul Green won his race in the Third by 3,352 votes. December 2003 Perry appointee Bob Pemberton, also endorsed by Perry also won his race by a similar margin (3,344). Despite vastly dissimilar inputs, Ernest Garcia lost to Bill Green by 4,923.

The Green Machine v. The Perry Machine

Did the name matter? Unquestionably. Was the outcome a result of anti-Hispanic bias? Probably not.

In the neighboring, and demographically similar, (Waco-based) 10th Court of Appeals, Felipe Reyna defeated challenger Lynnan Kendrick by 1,347 votes.

The name that mattered was Green.

Gov. Perry's Green, Paul Green, had lots of green ($) to spread around. He sent three mailers into all contested congressional districts, and some targeted counties, including Travis. In addition, Paul Green (HE) spent over $120,000 on radio ADS, and did direct automated phone calls on the first day of early voting and again on the Monday before election day.

And the phone calls that final Monday carried Rick Perry's voice, and emphasized his strong endorsement of Green.

This benefited Paul Green as it was meant to, but also benefited the other Green just below him on the ballot.

There was no rational reason why voters would choose Bill Green, and, as Reyna demonstrates, irrational reasons cannot explain the result. But the endorsement of Paul Green by a sitting governor, reinforced by a phone call the day before, does explain the otherwise inexplicable.

Bill Green made no public appearances whatsoever. Paul Green, like Smith, Garcia, and Pemberton, campaigned energetically.

Garcia was endorsed by Gov. Perry, Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson, Agriculture Commissioner Susan Combs, Railroad Commissioner Michael Williams, and 23 of the 24 Republican county chairs in the Third Court. No other candidate came close to such a sweep of elected officials and activists (Smith swept the activists and lower officials) against Paul Green, while Paul Green picked up Sen. John Cornyn and the Combined Law Enforcement Association of Texas.)

Garcia sent out three mailers to most Republican voters, and a phone call to 31,000 active Republican households (the total vote was 77,659 in the Garcia/Green race, 74,658 in the Pemberton race, and 77,884 in the Smith/Green race. The Paul Green advertising apparently created an impression of familiarity in the minds of Bill Green voters, bringing at least an additional 4,001 to cast ballots where they had skipped the less publicized Pemberton race.

Smith v. Garcia

But what accounts for the fact that Bill Green won more counties than Paul Green?

Both Smith and Garcia sent mailers into the area, though Garcia sent more. Smith also advertised on the radio, while Garcia did direct automated phone calls. But Smith was a known elected official and public figure in much of the district while Garcia was not. Not only was Smith known statewide for his work for the plaintiffs in the Hopwood anti-race-preferences case, but he also had run just two years ago in the Republican primary, and fifteen months ago in the general election. Garcia's previous electoral experience was limited to Travis County IN 2000, so he was unknown to many voters across the 24-county area.

Garcia and Bill Green are both Travis County residents, and Garcia cleaned Green's clock in Travis County (1,715 vote advantage).

Perry v. Perry

It seems clear, then, that the Rick Perry recruitment and endorsement of Paul Green led directly to the Bill Green victory.

The irony here is enormous. Perry recruited Paul Green to avenge the loss of Perry appointee Xavier Rodriguez, a self-described moderate with no prior judicial experience appointed solely to allow Perry to claim the mantle of "Hispanic outreach" in his contest against the first ever Hispanic Democratic candidate for Governor. The result was the defeat of Ernest Garcia, an experienced judge whose conservatism has never been questioned - a judge, who, had Perry appointed him in Rodriguez's place in 2002, Smith would not have challenged.

Smith's campaign manager, in fact, appeared as a surrogate for Garcia, and actively worked to promote Garcia's candidacy across the 24-county region.

I know. I managed the Smith campaign. And Ernest Garcia is still the best man for the Republican nomination in the Third Court, place four.

Who is Bill Green?

I know that because I know Bill Green. I met with Bill Green and tried to talk him out of the race, and Green lied to me and said he would withdraw.

And now Rick Perry's machinations have led to a hard-core environmentalist, who voted in Democrat primaries until 1998, and who worked for left-liberal Democrat state representative Steve Wolens (D-Dallas), being selected as the Republican nominee.

He will lose. He will lose to a Democrat who is more conservative than he is.

The result will be that the Third Court of Appeals, the most powerful intermediate appellate court in Texas, stays divided 3-3. Had Garcia been elected (and Pemberton retained), the Third Court, which hears all appeals from lawsuits involving any state agency, would have been in Republican hands for the first time ever.

This court is a critical chokepoint for Democrats who want to stop or delay Republican legislative, administrative and executive reforms.

Now, thanks to Rick Perry, that chokepoint will stay in Democratic hands.


TOPICS: Editorial; Politics/Elections; US: Texas
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-74 next last

1 posted on 03/11/2004 10:43:28 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Flyer; Humidston; Gracey; PetroniDE; anymouse; HoustonCurmudgeon; Ron H.; Xenalyte; Theodore R.; ...
Texas Ping!

BTW - I've been told that this Bill Green who Rick Perry helped is a flaming homosexual in addition to being a liberal Democrat environmentalist.

2 posted on 03/11/2004 10:47:54 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
I am so pissed off at Rick Perry right now, I would get banned for saying what I really thought of him. There needs to be a draft Greg Abbott or Jerry Patterson for governor campaign. They have the conservative leadership that can fix this joke that is the Republican Party of Texas.
3 posted on 03/11/2004 10:58:04 PM PST by jf55510
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
Wow.

I was going to write something very similar, David Rogers did it for me.

"The irony here is enormous. Perry recruited Paul Green to avenge the loss of Perry appointee Xavier Rodriguez, a self-described moderate with no prior judicial experience appointed solely to allow Perry to claim the mantle of "Hispanic outreach" in his contest against the first ever Hispanic Democratic candidate for Governor. The result was the defeat of Ernest Garcia, an experienced judge whose conservatism has never been questioned - a judge, who, had Perry appointed him in Rodriguez's place in 2002, Smith would not have challenged."

"Smith's campaign manager, in fact, appeared as a surrogate for Garcia, and actively worked to promote Garcia's candidacy across the 24-county region.

I know. I managed the Smith campaign. And Ernest Garcia is still the best man for the Republican nomination in the Third Court, place four."


I saw David on Tuesday, when I went to what I though would be a 'victory party' for Smith - turned into a wake. He put his heart and soul into the Steven Smith race and was quite emotional to see him and Ernest go down. It was a heartbreaking loss. I am still angry about the loss of Ernest. I gave him money, handed out some flyers (not enough I guess), and had his bumper sticker. I told everyone that he was right for the job.

This race should not have been close, but Perry's autodialing to 'vote Green' created a wave of ignorance that
washed over Ernest Garcia.

CAN WE UN-NOMINATE A CANDIDATE LIKE BILL GREEN???
4 posted on 03/11/2004 10:58:53 PM PST by WOSG (http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com - Disturb, manipulate, demonstrate for the right thing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jf55510
"Jerry Patterson for governor"

OKAY I am with you.

Carole's a squishy media hound, the gals (Susan Combs, KBH) are more liberal than Perry, but Jerry would be great.

5 posted on 03/11/2004 11:02:30 PM PST by WOSG (http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com - Disturb, manipulate, demonstrate for the right thing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
CAN WE UN-NOMINATE A CANDIDATE LIKE BILL GREEN???

It's a long shot and would almost certainly lead to a court battle and some lawsuits, but I would support an attempt to do so in the form of a "nullification" rule at the state convention that strips BOTH Greens of their nominations. The party could theoretically do this in San Antonio, which would automatically prompt a lawsuit from both Greens based upon Texas election statutes that say they earned the nomination. It is my belief that the Republican Party could successfully fight off a lawsuit of that type based upon a relatively recent precedent in which the Arkansas Democrats were allowed to refuse to seat Lyndon LaRouche delegates at their convention even though they had won delegate slots under state law. The premise of that ruling was that political parties are PRIVATE organizations and can accordingly choose their own candidates. Laws that prevent them from doing so are therefore unconstitutional.

6 posted on 03/11/2004 11:10:06 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jf55510
I'm not nuts about Perry, but give the man his due. He had a heck of a session. Democrats ran to Oklahoma, they ran to New Mexico, and Perry didn't blink. He ran a legislative session and didn't raise taxes, despite enormous pressure to do so.

The primaries are over. The Rats are united. Kerry thinks that the threat of terrorism is overblown, wants to reduce intelligence spending, and treat the terrorists like criminals rather than the enemy in a war.

Remember Ronald Reagan and the 11th Commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican


7 posted on 03/11/2004 11:10:40 PM PST by Richard Kimball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Richard Kimball
I'm not nuts about Perry, but give the man his due. He had a heck of a session. Democrats ran to Oklahoma, they ran to New Mexico, and Perry didn't blink.

He didn't blink because he had Tom DeLay breathing down his throat and the RNC letting him know that there would be hell to pay if he caved.

And for the irony of ironies: guess who gave a $5,000 endorsement to Paul Green, Perry's candidate for supreme court. That's right - the lead attorney for the Chicken D's in New Mexico!

Reagan said not to speak ill of other Republicans but Rick Perry is no true Republican. He's a petty, vindictive, power peddling moderate who guts our party of its most conservative officeholders in the primary and then turns around to demand that we support him in the general.

8 posted on 03/11/2004 11:16:38 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Richard Kimball
I'm not nuts about Perry, but give the man his due. He had a heck of a session. Democrats ran to Oklahoma, they ran to New Mexico, and Perry didn't blink. He ran a legislative session and didn't raise taxes, despite enormous pressure to do so.

He did fine in the session. But his actions during the session are no reason to give him a pass for his actions in this primary. He got conservative jurists beat because he is a sore loser. He replaced a good conservatives with a gay environmental wacko and a pro-abortion trial lawyer friendly jurist that took money the Chicken D's lawyers. Way to go Rick.

The primaries are over. The Rats are united. Kerry thinks that the threat of terrorism is overblown, wants to reduce intelligence spending, and treat the terrorists like criminals rather than the enemy in a war.

Not really sure what this has to do with anything.

Remember Ronald Reagan and the 11th Commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican

Well Perry isn't a Republican and frankly Reagan got this one wrong. Just because they are a Republican does not mean that they should be immune from criticism from their own party.
9 posted on 03/11/2004 11:19:55 PM PST by jf55510
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
but I would support an attempt to do so in the form of a "nullification" rule at the state convention that strips BOTH Greens of their nominations."

Non-starter. Paul Green got establishment support. I am on the Susan Lilly list. everyone gave to him ... dont ask me why. And everyone endorsed him.

We could however go after Bill Green. Maybe if we get enough affidavits of people who voted for Bill Green, we could get a 'nullification'.

"It is my belief that the Republican Party could successfully fight off a lawsuit of that type based upon a relatively recent precedent in which the Arkansas Democrats were allowed to refuse to seat Lyndon LaRouche delegates at their convention even though they had won delegate slots under state law."

Likewise we could fight off this if there is some power for the party to withdraw support based on voter confusion.

The effort would be pretty much in vain if the end result is an empty name on the ballot ... can we go back and undo that so that Garcia is back on the ballot?

10 posted on 03/11/2004 11:23:56 PM PST by WOSG (http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com - Disturb, manipulate, demonstrate for the right thing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jf55510
"The primaries are over. The Rats are united. Kerry thinks that the threat of terrorism is overblown, wants to reduce intelligence spending, and treat the terrorists like criminals rather than the enemy in a war.

Not really sure what this has to do with anything."

It's election season. Deer season, hunt deer.

Election Season, Hunt Democrats.
11 posted on 03/11/2004 11:25:22 PM PST by WOSG (http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com - Disturb, manipulate, demonstrate for the right thing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
He didn't blink because he had Tom DeLay breathing down his throat and the RNC letting him know that there would be hell to pay if he caved.

That's the point. How much influence would DeLay have had over Ma Richards? You might be able to get a RINO to submit to a spine implant. You have no influence over a Rat. If he runs for re-election, I'm going to support someone else in the primaries, and I hope that someone else is a Libertarian-Republican. But if Perry wins the primaries, well, to quote FDR, "He may be a son of a b!tch, but he's our son of a b!tch". BTW, I work the primaries pretty heavily, and tend to be quite the contrarian there. When the primaries are over, I'm ready to go Rat huntin!

12 posted on 03/11/2004 11:26:31 PM PST by Richard Kimball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
Check my post 8. I posted it before seeing yours. Apparently, great minds think alike, and so do ours.
13 posted on 03/11/2004 11:28:22 PM PST by Richard Kimball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
It's election season. Deer season, hunt deer.

Election Season, Hunt Democrats.


I wanna go RINO hunting.
14 posted on 03/11/2004 11:42:30 PM PST by jf55510
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
Non-starter. Paul Green got establishment support. I am on the Susan Lilly list. everyone gave to him ... dont ask me why. And everyone endorsed him

I'm not sure what happened in your part of the state but in mine (Harris County/Houston) the exact opposite was true. Smith got most of our local party leadership endorsements and even got two of the three major "rent-a-slates," which almost always go with Perry's guy. There were only 2 notable Green endorsements out of Houston that I can think of: one was by the United Republicans which is a "big tent" pro-abort moderate group that nobody listens to, and the other was by the leftist Houston Chronicle.

15 posted on 03/11/2004 11:45:15 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: WOSG; GOPcapitalist
What about X41 for Senator to replace KBH, or for Gov if KBH doesn't challenge Perry?

As Rockefeller Republican as he is, I wouldn't particularly care to see him in the Statehouse, when we're going to have to fight for DOMA and border issues, or even for an amendment on SSM, but at least it's not like most big-state governorships. He'd blend in better in the Senate, where he'd probably fit right in with Bill Frist, Chuck Grassley and those guys as an ACU-65/70 mild conservative. He'd be an instant player -- as a consular, he would never be a "freshman" senator, ignored and disregarded -- so we wouldn't have to give up so much vig if, pardon the expression, Kay bailed. Plus, I like the idea of someone continuing to throw a shadow over John Cornyn, who smells to me like a throwback to the kind of senator who used to be in bankers' or oilmen's pockets.

Plus, we haven't had an ex-President sit in the Congress since John Quincy Adams. It might spruce the place up.

What do you think?

16 posted on 03/12/2004 5:41:16 AM PST by lentulusgracchus (Et praeterea caeterum censeo, delenda est Carthago. -- M. Porcius Cato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist; WOSG
I think this analysis looks pretty accurate. And it would have been easier on everyone if Smith had been given a pass to the general election. However, blaming everything on Perry is not fair. If Smith wants to primary Perry's nominee, Perry could support primarying Smith. It's not his fault that Bill had the same last name as Paul. The Smith-Green race is more proof, in my opinion, that Anglos do better than Hispanics in GOP primaries. Smith could beat incumbent Hernandez, but as an incumbent himself loses to challenger Paul Green. How can anyone now say Smith's win was due to an overriding preference for his Hopwood, etc, fame?

Overall, a relatively good showing for Hispanic Republicans.

Anyone know what happened in the Rondon-McCally race, the other Hispanic incumbent that was primaried?

17 posted on 03/12/2004 6:59:19 AM PST by JohnnyZ (Browse CAMPAIGN CENTRAL for election 2004 threads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jf55510

I will never vote for Perry again after the way he treated Smith and managed to defeat Garcia as well. What a first class clymer Perry is!
18 posted on 03/12/2004 7:06:40 AM PST by kittymyrib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Richard Kimball
I'm not nuts about Perry, but give the man his due.

I'm not going to give the man his due, because most of what he has done has been on the backs of others, and the people he has championed have not all been real Conservatives.

I'll admit that I have not cared for Perry since he was a rising star in the democrat party.

I'll take Carole Keeton any day of the week, because I know her history and that she is a true Republican, and comes from a large family of Republicans. I also knew her father and I have a great deal of respect for him, and her sons obviously have done well, working directly for President Bush.

She did some things I didn't care for, but I understand where she was coming from, whereas with Perry, he does things that leave me scratching my head and wondering if he is still loyal to his old party.

19 posted on 03/12/2004 7:10:26 AM PST by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
The elder Bush would be an interesting addition, I have to admit, however I doubt he wants to get back into that. He's certainly earned the time off and his retirement.

I don't think Perry will win again though, for several reasons, the least of which he harps on fixing the system and lowering or restraining property taxes, when taxes elsewhere will just go up (businesses, certain consumer goods and services, etc.). It's not true tax relief or budget reform if taxes drop in one area and go up in another.

20 posted on 03/12/2004 7:16:14 AM PST by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist; WOSG; jf55510
We can blame Perry for ousting Smith and unintentionally ousting Garcia, but the real problem lies with the Republican Party structure.

"What we have here is a failure to communicate."

The state and local party officials need to do a much better job of informing the Republican voters. I'll give the Travis County Chairman credit for spotting the name-confusion possibility and doing an automated call supporting Garcia and pointing out that Bill Green is not a Republican.

Maybe someone can share what happened in Bell County which supported both Garcia and Smith.

Now, WHY did the other counties fail to communicate this information to the voters?

21 posted on 03/12/2004 7:30:01 AM PST by DrewsDad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ
Anyone know what happened in the Rondon-McCally race, the other Hispanic incumbent that was primaried?

According to the Comical, "State District Judge Reece Rondon was narrowly unseated by challenger Sharon McCally."
22 posted on 03/12/2004 8:14:08 AM PST by Xenalyte (I may not agree with your bumper sticker, but I shall defend to the death your right to stick it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_rr
I'll take Carole Keeton any day of the week, because I know her history and that she is a true Republican, and comes from a large family of Republicans. I also knew her father and I have a great deal of respect for him, and her sons obviously have done well, working directly for President Bush.

If this is the case, and I'm not saying it isn't, why does she come across as such a media whore?
23 posted on 03/12/2004 8:15:41 AM PST by Xenalyte (I may not agree with your bumper sticker, but I shall defend to the death your right to stick it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
Thanks for the ping, GOP. With this news, I can see why that rumor was swirling about Perry. What a toad!

24 posted on 03/12/2004 8:18:27 AM PST by Humidston (Two Words: TERM LIMITS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_rr
I know Carol Keeton Rylander McLellan also. I would probably support her in the primary over Perry. At this time, though, the primaries are over, and we should focus on this November.
25 posted on 03/12/2004 8:37:34 AM PST by Richard Kimball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Xenalyte; WOSG
According to the Comical, "State District Judge Reece Rondon was narrowly unseated by challenger Sharon McCally."

Yeah, but I'm wondering what happened? How strong were McCally's and Rondon's relative campaigns? Why did Rondon lose when Guzman, Reyna, and Carter won?

26 posted on 03/12/2004 8:42:09 AM PST by JohnnyZ (Browse CAMPAIGN CENTRAL for election 2004 threads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: jf55510
Greg Abbott or Jerry Patterson?
That sounds great! Where do I sign up?

But if the choice is Perry vs Hutchison, I'd hold my nose and vote for Perry, as the lesser of two weasels.

Perry is even pushing for a tax increase, masquerading as a state property tax that would be "offset" by "local prpoerty tax reductions" - is anybody buying that crock?
That the counties would cut property taxes?

At least with our current system, local people get to vote on local taxes; with a statewide property tax, what incentive would say the folks down along the Rio have to EVER reject a statewide property tax increase?
27 posted on 03/12/2004 9:16:20 AM PST by Redbob (ultrakonservativen click-guerilla)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Xenalyte
If this is the case, and I'm not saying it isn't, why does she come across as such a media whore?

I think she does it deliberately, and I think she does it to put certain people on notice. Her rejection of the budget was probably carefully orchestrated. Look at what she said about a year ago when she rejected it : "I am here today to fulfill my responsibility. To do otherwise would violate my constitutional duty, and that I will never do."

She's also tossing flames around in the media over Perry and others trying to have her responsibilities moved over to the legislature or govenor's office, kind of a "Rick Perry wants to have the fox guarding the hen house and I'm not going to stand quietly by" strategy. This would play well in 2006.

Perry should not have crossed her over those responsibilities, for several reasons, the least of which he could find himself running against her or Senator Hutchison. He'll find that all those things he did for Tom DeLay won't help him out - DeLay will stay far far away from that struggle, because he values his job too much.

28 posted on 03/12/2004 9:49:19 AM PST by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
It is my belief that the Republican Party could successfully fight off a lawsuit of that type based upon a relatively recent precedent in which the Arkansas Democrats were allowed to refuse to seat Lyndon LaRouche delegates at their convention even though they had won delegate slots under state law. The premise of that ruling was that political parties are PRIVATE organizations and can accordingly choose their own candidates. Laws that prevent them from doing so are therefore unconstitutional.

Without even going into the political considerations involved with such a move, I would point out the fact that you left out four CRITICAL words in what you said above.

If it were modified to read:

It is my belief that the Republican Party could successfully fight off a lawsuit of that type IF THEY WANTED TO...

it would be correct IMHO!

29 posted on 03/12/2004 10:09:35 AM PST by Bigun (IRSsucks@getridof it.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
Yes. Every single activist and local activist group was on Smith's side. This include CTRA of which I am a member and which I made an impassioned plea to support Smith. In fact, I didnt meet a single person who was pro-Green, except I guess when Scott Spears spoke for Green at the Austin Repub meeting 2 weeks back.

But the Green fundraisers had James Huffines as the 'treasurer' and a lot of familiar big-money names attached, not just the law firms.
Smith's endorsement list was mostly Cultural Consevatives (eg eagle forum people). Green got the RINO ex-supreme court members (Enoch), Cornyn, etc. Smith had no comparables from theestablishment except Kay B H. By "everyone" I should have said "everyone in the establishment/RINO side seems to have endorsed Green" ... and should have added "NOBODY gave a choerent and correct explanation as to why Smith was undeserving of re-election".



30 posted on 03/12/2004 10:19:13 AM PST by WOSG (http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com - Disturb, manipulate, demonstrate for the right thing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Bigun; GOPcapitalist
" It is my belief that the Republican Party could successfully fight off a lawsuit of that type based upon a relatively recent precedent in which the Arkansas Democrats were allowed to refuse to seat Lyndon LaRouche delegates at their convention even though they had won delegate slots under state law. The premise of that ruling was that political parties are PRIVATE organizations and can accordingly choose their own candidates. Laws that prevent them from doing so are therefore unconstitutional."

Great!

Let's lobby for this. Here's my thought of how it should work:
1. A super-majority of the Texas SREC (maybe 3/4s, 2/3rds, or unanamous) declares the vote in question due to voter error, shows evidence of voter error (we get some affidavits from Repub primary voters who voted for Bill Green and didnt know he was a Lib Dem and woefully regret their error) and calls upon the State to renominate in the State convention.

2. The delegates that cover the area of the 3rd court of appeals first vote to affirm that the vote in question should be thrown out, then after affirming that, they caucus to nominate and then elect the true GOP nominee.
3. Ernest Garcia is placed into nomination and then selected as the true candidate.

This can be tried on Smith, but IMHO that would be schismatic in a way that fixing hte Garcia/ Bill Green race wouldnt be.

"It is my belief that the Republican Party could successfully fight off a lawsuit of that type IF THEY WANTED TO..."

Here's how it should work: The Chair (Tina Benkhiser) and the SREC are the ones who need to be lobbied on this. They are the ones who could call an emergency meeting, change the party rules, and get Bill Green thrown off the ballot.

We can make the case on Bill Green because it was a clear case of "voter error". We can verify that by finding out some Republicans who voted for Green and see if they know what they voted for.
31 posted on 03/12/2004 10:29:32 AM PST by WOSG (http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com - Disturb, manipulate, demonstrate for the right thing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: DrewsDad
You are ABSOLUTELY 100% CORRECT!!!

I can tell you why agendas are mis-prioritized, but that would be better a personal discussion.
32 posted on 03/12/2004 10:37:15 AM PST by WOSG (http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com - Disturb, manipulate, demonstrate for the right thing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
Bush 41?!?!

pleeze.

I'm missing Armey, Gramm and Newt real bad these days. But not 41.

33 posted on 03/12/2004 10:46:52 AM PST by WOSG (http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com - Disturb, manipulate, demonstrate for the right thing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
I will bounce this off my SREC reps this weekend.
34 posted on 03/12/2004 12:06:48 PM PST by Bigun (IRSsucks@getridof it.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: jf55510; GOPcapitalist; WOSG
How about Michael Williams for Senate or Governor?
35 posted on 03/12/2004 12:25:25 PM PST by TxRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jf55510
Perhaps Perry really was being extorted over those rumors and this was a concession.
36 posted on 03/12/2004 12:29:02 PM PST by mabelkitty (A tuning, a Vote in the topic package to the starting US presidency election fight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Bigun
I am studying the election code tosee what is up:

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/eltoc.html

unfortunately, it is pretty clear, so only a constitutional challenge to see could make the rule go through, and the RPT rules say that they should obey the laws ... so ...

§ 172.001. NOMINATING BY PRIMARY ELECTION
REQUIRED. Except as otherwise provided by this code, a political
party's nominees in the general election for offices of state and
county government and the United States Congress must be nominated
by primary election, held as provided by this code, if the party's
nominee for governor in the most recent gubernatorial general
election received 20 percent or more of the total number of votes
received by all candidates for governor in the election.

Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986.
37 posted on 03/12/2004 1:30:50 PM PST by WOSG (http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com - Disturb, manipulate, demonstrate for the right thing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
see my previous post to Bigun.

what is the exact name of the case you mentioned? the arkansas case?

Do you really think the texas section 172 requiring primary election could be overturned?
38 posted on 03/12/2004 1:32:25 PM PST by WOSG (http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com - Disturb, manipulate, demonstrate for the right thing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
what is the exact name of the case you mentioned? the arkansas case? Do you really think the texas section 172 requiring primary election could be overturned

I'll have to do some research to find it, but yes - I do think that the Republican Party could wage a successful challenge to the Texas laws on the grounds that they are a private organization. It could also be argued that the prcoess of regulating the party's nominating process is an infringement upon the free speech of the party itself.

39 posted on 03/12/2004 1:39:35 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
"I'll have to do some research to find it, but yes - I do think that the Republican Party could wage a successful challenge to the Texas laws on the grounds that they are a private organization. It could also be argued that the prcoess of regulating the party's nominating process is an infringement upon the free speech of the party itself."

I am not as hopeful. I cant find any case law overturning
primary election law. delegation selectoin to a convention is much more narrow than nomination by primary.

I did find this - McConnell v FEC, and you know how 1st amendment rights of parties fared there:
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/fec/mcconnellfec050203jhop.pdf

OTOH, there *is* hope if this is Texas statute, and we have the Texas lege on our side: We could add a provision that allows for party selection "if there is clear voter error that puts the election result in question as to being a true reflection of informed voter choice". But whether that could be done in a timely fashion ... nope.

40 posted on 03/12/2004 1:49:43 PM PST by WOSG (http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com - Disturb, manipulate, demonstrate for the right thing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ
If Smith wants to primary Perry's nominee, Perry could support primarying Smith.

Yes and no. If, for example, Perry had a good reason to take out Smith as Smith did to take out X-Rod, then he would have been justified. Perry had absolutely no good reason beyond his own petty vindictiveness.

It's not his fault that Bill had the same last name as Paul.

The problem is that the governor should have known that would be a likely unintended consequence. If he did not anticipate it then he is politically stupid, which gives all the more reason to question the petty vindictiveness of his crusade against Smith.

The Smith-Green race is more proof, in my opinion, that Anglos do better than Hispanics in GOP primaries.

I don't believe that to be the case at all. If, for example, Green had not recieved the support of several statewide mailouts by Perry himself and an entire weekend of Perry autodialing I believe it is doubtful that he would have won and doubtful that the homosexual democrat Green would have won as well. You also have the case of the 14th Court of Appeals where hispanic Eva Guzman clobbered anglo challenger Lloyd Oliver in a landslide.

Anyone know what happened in the Rondon-McCally race, the other Hispanic incumbent that was primaried?

Well, for starters the name Reece Rondon isn't exactly the same as, say, Juan-Carlos Hernandez. The name Reece Rondon gives virtually no hint of his ethnicity either way and, except for those who had seen him in person or had seen a picture of him, I sincerely doubt that most primary voters had any clue as to whether he was anglo or hispanic. His narrow loss is probably best attributed to the fact that, of all the challengers to Perry's appointments in Harris County, McCally was the best funded.

41 posted on 03/12/2004 1:50:42 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_rr
whereas with Perry, he does things that leave me scratching my head and wondering if he is still loyal to his old party.

Exactly. Things like signing the hate crimes law and appointing LIBERAL DEMOCRAT Henry Cuellar as secretary of state come to mind.

42 posted on 03/12/2004 1:52:32 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: DrewsDad
Now, WHY did the other counties fail to communicate this information to the voters?

Well, in Harris County we have an incompetent and corrupt party chairman who tows the line for Perry and, more importantly, a sleazy local political consultant. The only autodialer he made was to accuse a challenger to a Perry appointee of falsely claiming she had an endorsement from George W. Bush. In reality she never made that claim - she only described herself as a "George W. Bush Republican," albeit excessively for my tastes (I still voted for her just to stick it to Perry). Needless to say, she wasn't guilty of the charge he made against her. And other than that he sat the entire thing out when it was revealed that Paul Green was the Planned Parenthood and Chicken D's candidate for Supreme Court.

43 posted on 03/12/2004 1:57:16 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
I am not as hopeful. I cant find any case law overturning primary election law.

That area actually does have a long history. There were several pre-Brown civil rights cases including some in Texas where state law in the primaries was overturned by the US Supreme Court on the grounds that it intentionally violated certain civil rights. I just emailed a friend to look for that arkansas case for me.

44 posted on 03/12/2004 2:00:22 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: TxRep
How about Michael Williams for Senate or Governor?

Up until a few months ago I would have agreed, but as of late Williams has been allowing his desire for increased outreach to black voters to outweigh his common sense in policy decisions. For example, Williams recently denounced Jerry Patterson, the Land Commissioner, for simply asking the state to restore a wholly non-offensive Robert E. Lee memorial plaque that it had removed after a bunch of PC nazis at the NAACP complained. His entire grounds for doing so was that it would make more blacks vote Democrat. He seemed unaware that 95% of them already do just that.

45 posted on 03/12/2004 2:04:51 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
Here's how it should work: The Chair (Tina Benkhiser) and the SREC are the ones who need to be lobbied on this. They are the ones who could call an emergency meeting, change the party rules, and get Bill Green thrown off the ballot.

Unfortunately trying to get the current RPT leadership to do this is a lost cause. They are still loyal to the spineless pharisee who was our last chairman, Susan Weddington, and she is in the pocket of Rick Perry.

The only chance we have is to push something from the floor of the convention in San Antonio. We should also SERIOUSLY consider a movement to oust and replace the current leadership of the RPT including several SREC members for the simple reason that they have become to the state party what Robert Byrd is to the US Senate: old, washed up politicians who have no real interest in changing the status quo.

46 posted on 03/12/2004 2:10:47 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
Well, that seems clear enough to me.

Guess we are STUCK and conservatives are just going to have to learn how to play HARDBALL!

47 posted on 03/12/2004 2:13:07 PM PST by Bigun (IRSsucks@getridof it.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Bigun
IF THEY WANTED TO...

Yes. And that is a big IF. I believe that there are some members of the party leadership who could be induced to support such a move. Tim Lambert may be one, and Denise McNamara would probably follow him simply because they tried a similar move of using the party rules to prevent non-republican voters from participating in our primaries last time. The real problem is the Susan Weddington crowd that still occupies many leadership roles at the RPT. Weddington is in bed with Perry, yet also maintains an unusually strong sway over the "religious right" by pretending to be one of them. She has used it in the past to defeat attempts that would make the party stronger and will use it again so that is what we're up against.

48 posted on 03/12/2004 2:15:39 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
grepping around ... i keep getting a missouri ballot-instruction case ...

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/99-929/1999-0929.mer.ami.html

Nor does Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (1952), support the State's position. In that case, the Court upheld a state law that allowed political parties to require that candidates for the position of presidential elector in a party primary pledge, if elected, to support the national party's nominees for President and Vice President. (The party would not certify a candidate for a place on the primary ballot unless he made such a pledge.) The Court rejected the contention that the law violated the Twelfth Amendment in that it constrained electors' discretion to vote for President according to their own judgment. The Court stressed, however, that the purpose of the state law was to strengthen the political party system, see id. at 221-222, 226 n.14, which the Court has long recognized as a legitimate objective of state regulation over elections.19

19 The law under review in Ray was similar to laws protecting political parties against raiding, which the Court has upheld on several occasions. See Burdick, 504 U.S. at 439; Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U.S. 752 (1973).

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/99-929/1999-0929.mer.ami.pdf

not finding what i need to find (sigh) ... it seems it could be repaired with some change to Texas election code, but too late for that. 172 is clear, if you get more than 20% of the governorship vote, you use a primary to select nominees.

I would think it would be upheld. I dunno.
49 posted on 03/12/2004 2:21:53 PM PST by WOSG (http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com - Disturb, manipulate, demonstrate for the right thing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
The only chance we have is to push something from the floor of the convention in San Antonio."

That wont work. There are ZERO provisions in the GOP party rules to do anything related to primary selection.

If you dont have the SREC 100% behind this, it wont happen.

And since Texas law is clear, you need some case law showing that it would withstand a challenge.

50 posted on 03/12/2004 2:24:33 PM PST by WOSG (http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com - Disturb, manipulate, demonstrate for the right thing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-74 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson