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

Skip to comments.

McCaul, Streusand finally square off (Texas CD 10)
AMERICAN-STATESMAN ^ | March 24, 2004 | Ken Herman

Posted on 03/24/2004 11:11:02 AM PST by SwinneySwitch

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-115 next last
"No Democrat sought the seat, and, to date, no third-party or independent candidates have qualified for the November general election ballot."

Sounds like Ken wishes somebody other than a Republican were running.

1 posted on 03/24/2004 11:11:05 AM PST by SwinneySwitch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Comment #2 Removed by Moderator

To: SwinneySwitch
bmp
3 posted on 03/24/2004 11:23:31 AM PST by shield (Scientific Discoveries of the century reveal GOD!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SwinneySwitch
Is it just me, or does the Streusand spot tying people like Johnnie Chung to McCaul a little over the top?

I understand John Conryn has weighed in on McCaul's side. If Tom DeLay chose one over the other, this race would be over.
4 posted on 03/24/2004 11:26:33 AM PST by LincolnLover
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LincolnLover
The only thing that makes me wonder about McCaul is how he
ended up investigating the ChiComm money. Wouldn't Janet Reno
get to decide who was on that team? If so, why would she want
McCaul?
Since we are choosing our congressman for the next 10 years
we need to be careful.
5 posted on 03/24/2004 11:57:27 AM PST by conejo99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SwinneySwitch; GOPcapitalist; Gracey; DrewsDad; PetroniDE; af_vet_rr; esarlls3; WOSG; jf55510; ...
Apparently,
I was the only freeper who went.
Shame on the rest of you CD-10ers.

Report:
About 50 people attended. Majority were campaign staff or volunteers. 5 or 10 associated with the various Republican clubs that sponsored the debate, mostly "1960 Area Republicans". 10 - 15 precinct chairs or just interested citizens. (Shame again!)
Very structured debate.
Open statement,
4 questions addressed by each(same question)
Closing statement.
No rebuttals.

My notes on the debate (all paraphrasing):
Open statement:
McCaul: (paraprased, see article) I am just a simple family man lawyer, why am I getting picked on so much?
Streusand: Elect me to cut taxes and spending etc.

Question 1. How will you curb spending?
McCaul: We must consider sunset laws, look at the deficit, and how spending bills are passed in omnibus budget
Streusand: I am a businessman, I know that there is and should be a limited amount of money. We must only spend on what is necessary, can't spend on everything.

2. What do you think about or what would you do about job outsourcing to other countries?
Streusand: Penalizing companies and corporations is not the answer. We need to reduce the government burdens so that US business can compete on a fair basis
McCaul: yeah, me too. Plus for all of our high knowledge jobs we lose, we should provide re-training in community colleges

3. Is the Canadian border a bigger threat to US security than Mexico border?
McCaul: (first sentence mentioned illegal aliens problem). Blah blah blah (no meat); NEXT 4 SENTENCES HE SAYS WE HAVE TO DO SOMETING ABOUT THE "UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS"; THE "UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS PROBLEM";! Nothing about law enforcement or closing borders!
Streusand: More border patrol, more law enforcement cooperation,SECURE BOTH BORDERS!

4. Do you believe life begins at conception? Do what to change things?
Streusand: Yes. Focus on electing constructionist judjes that respect the constitution; get the feds out of this and back to the states
McCaul: Yes. (something about a prenatal protection act). Change the culture.

Close.
Stresand: Tax reform, reduce healthcare costs by removing government burdens, attack government waste that makes me sick! (gave examples of waste)
McCaul: I am a good man, the campaign is so hard, I have been attacked,..... (He actually sniffed, voice cracked just a little. Reminded me of Ron Brown funeral video of Clinton. IMO, This guy showed his lawyer training with the crocodile tears).

End of presentation.

What happened when it was over: I asked the Streusand staff about the negative ads. They say it started with negative phone calls in Travis county that they blame on McCaul's campaign. McCaul's campaign says that Streusand started it. He said / She said.

I saw pictures of Streusand campaign signs that were defaced, the middle cut out or blacked out. Not sure who did it from pictures, but they think it was McCaul supporters.

FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE: After the debate ended, I go outside to have a smoke, I was one of the first or only persons to go outside. ALL THE STREUSAND CAMPAIGN SIGNS HAD BEEN REMOVED; ONLY THE MCCAUL SIGNS REMAINED.

Good question: Why would the candidate who led the primary by 10% be motivated to escalate the negative campaign? Which candidate would be motivated to steal and deface the other's signs?

The "who went negative first" question cannot be proven by either camp. Looks like Streusand because he did it first in broadcast.
I wanted to give McCaul the benefit of the doubt, and still do. He may not have known about or approved of sign stealing.
BUT... his comments about "UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS", 4 times! shows his Austin Political Correctness attitude. The crying game about "poor me being attacked by negative ads", looked very weak. I know that this style of debate is difficult, but his responses were much more mealy-mouthed platitudes without stating his ideas or plans for action, but he liked someone else's plan, or we should look at this problem, etc.

Sorry if I stepped on anyone's toes here.
But I see Ben Streusand as a leader.

He was the FIRST to send mailers and do broadcast commercials supporting tax reform and abolishing the IRS.

He was the FIRST to send mailers and do broadcast commercials for ending illegal immigration.

He was the FIRST to send mailers and do broadcast commercials for stopping gay marriage.

He was the ONLY ONE to send mailers to me stating that he will fight for parental notification, rights of the unborn, stop fed funding for abortion, protect caregivers that refuse to participate in abortions.

McCaul mostly says: Me too.

I don't like the negative ads between these two Republicans. I told them so. I told Streusand's people that I was going to give McCaul a second look because of some of Streusand's prior donations to dems (even though he raised .5 million for Republicans).

But after last night, no way am I going to vote for a PC Austin Lawyer Perry Buddy that wants to take care of the "UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS PROBLEM" and cry about politics being tough. Go back to your civil service job, MM.

MORE TO COME IN THE NEXT SEGMENT:
McCaul and Janet Reno - I have more info.
McCaul and Johnny Chung - I have more info.

DREWSDAD SURVEY:
I got a commitment and should have Streusand's responses soon!

6 posted on 03/24/2004 6:03:46 PM PST by iamright (Imagine an ALL FREEPER GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iamright; YCTHouston; BUSHdude2000
Thanks for the report! McCaul's use of the term "undocumented workers" repeatedly to refer to illegal immigrants should send red flags up.

That term is EXCLUSIVELY designed for PC purposes and only two crowds of people use it: (1) the left wing MeCHistas, LULACs, marxists, and Cruz Bustamantes who want the illegals for their votes and (2) the Cornynite Republicans who are trying to sugarcoat an amnesty-lite program because they want the cheap labor.

NOBODY who truly believes in border security uses the term "undocumented workers" to refer to illegals. NOBODY who is truly opposed to amnesty uses the term "undocumented workers" to refer to illegals. McCaul clearly had a freudian slip with that one and I sincerely hope it costs him the election now.

7 posted on 03/24/2004 6:14:31 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: iamright
The crying game about "poor me being attacked by negative ads", looked very weak.

That's another complaint I've had with McCaul - he's whiny when he gets attacked over something he KNEW was public record and he KNEW would come up in his campaign. As the old saying goes, if you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen.

8 posted on 03/24/2004 6:16:17 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: iamright
MORE TO COME IN THE NEXT SEGMENT:
McCaul and Janet Reno - I have more info.
McCaul and Johnny Chung - I have more info.

Be careful about posting that kind of stuff. It may prompt Mike "Undocumented Workers" McCaul to dispatch Jack Stick, who will then send you an angry email. You should have a little time to prepare in between though as he won't be able to call up Stick until he's done crying ;-)

9 posted on 03/24/2004 6:32:16 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: iamright
DREWSDAD SURVEY:
I got a commitment and should have Streusand's responses soon!

Great Job!

WOSG and many others helped put the questionnaire together. I have just been bugging the candidates for a response. Should I resend it to make sure they have it?

10 posted on 03/24/2004 7:07:05 PM PST by DrewsDad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DrewsDad
DrewsDad,
Marc Cowert, campaign manager says he gets dozens of those from various groups.

On this one, he said:
"Could they have made it any damn longer? I looked at it. Most others have yes or no questions. Jeez!"

Then he said he would get it to me in a couple of days.

I told the campaign guys about FR. Sent them links.
Wrote "FREEREPUBLIC.COM" on my visitor name tag, for all to see.

"Should I resend it to make sure they have it?"
I know they have the copy I sent that I ctl/c ctl/y from one of the threads, I think it had everything on it.
17 questions + how can freepers help your campaign question.
11 posted on 03/24/2004 7:23:58 PM PST by iamright (Imagine an ALL FREEPER GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: iamright
Thanks for the update. There's been very little coverage about this race which involves two larges cities with a high media presence. I tend to think that's because they aren't happy with the result.

I did laugh myself silly when I heard the radio ad where Streusand attacks McCaul for being endorsed by the Austin American-Statesman. I said before it happened that McCaul shouldn't be touting that endorsement if he understands his electorate.

I'd suspected all along that McCaul was the Bush-Rove candidate and he's done nothing to disprove that. That might be good in November against a Democrat but it doesn't help when the Democrats and Indies have already run for the tall grass.

I like a representative who isn't just a yes-man and a rubber stamp for the RNC. Conservatives have a better chance of getting our way if we have a representative that will hold the Bushies' feet to the fire, not just say "amen" whenever they trot out another government program. That's why I'll vote for Streusand, even with some of the negatives.

As for the negative campaign, the person who started it is John Devine. His backers were behind the initial mailing that attacked both McCaul and Streusand as "not true Republicans". His men apparently did the opposition research but were too cowardly to put their candidate's name behind their own mailings. That was a turn off for me.

As used as conservatives are of being sold down the river by members of our own party, I note an ubersensitivy to certain buzzwords like "undocumented workers" and "health of the mother". They may not mean it the way we've seen those phrases distorted but it does send up red flags.
12 posted on 03/24/2004 8:35:13 PM PST by Tall_Texan (The War on Terror is mere collateral damage to the Democrats' War on Bush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: conejo99
I say don't be fooled by Ben Streusand. He's certainly doesn't act like a Republican. He seems to me to be a man lacking scruples. It's anything to win. Check the RECORD, not the RHETORIC. Tell me, WHY would President Bush 41 and Cornyn be supporting McCaul if he was not a decent person? I've met both and find Ben to be a cold, ruthless type person. I saw no warmth in him. I don't trust what he says.

Have you questioned why a "republican" would give money to TWO Democrats AGAINST our two Republican senators???? He stated it was for BUSINESS reasons. Do you want a congressman who votes and does things JUST FOR his personal BUSINESS expediency?
13 posted on 03/24/2004 10:08:57 PM PST by Gracey (NOT Fonda Kerry and his 9.10 Democrat Party mentality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tall_Texan
Read my #13. I just don't understand how ANYONE can vote for their CD person who just two years ago gave money to the Democrat Senate candidate and seems to be proud of it. Also, he supported Kay Bailey Hutchisons opposition a few years back. You'd rather support a Democrat than someone who is supported by President Bush and our Senator Cornyn??? You got to be kidding? You support someone who supports DEMOCRATS befor someone endorsed by Republican president??? I just don't understand.

Ben only cares about HIMSELF. He gave money to Senate Democrats for BUSINESS reasons. Is that the type man you want? At least MCCaul gave service to his country in the DOJ.
14 posted on 03/24/2004 10:14:07 PM PST by Gracey (NOT Fonda Kerry and his 9.10 Democrat Party mentality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: iamright
It's hard to figure out who you support. Want to tell us?
15 posted on 03/24/2004 10:23:28 PM PST by Gracey (NOT Fonda Kerry and his 9.10 Democrat Party mentality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Gracey
If you run a multimillion dollar business, sometimes you give to both sides in order to insure you have access to protect your business.

What were Krueger and Bentsen at the time these donations were made? They were office-holders. Krueger was the interim U.S. Senator and Bentsen a U.S. Representative (and son of a very influential former senator and cabinet member). If a bill came up that was going to hurt his business, he wanted to make sure he had an ally in Congress and the only way you get their ear is to give to their campaign. The issue is a straw dog just like the "McCaul worked for Janet Reno" straw dog.

Neither was about politics. And the only reason they are being waved around now is because politics is a cut-throat business.

Yes, it's possible Streusand is just a rich scam artist but I don't think he is and I'm willing to take that chance over another Bush rubber stamp. Otherwise, we get more Rick Perrys, more Rove RINOs. I think his personal wealth means he doesn't have to vote with who brung him. He's not owned by any political machine when he gets to Washington, therefore he can be his own man.

I don't just want more Republicans in Washington, I want more conservatives. Being one's own man means he can vote how he wants to and, if he votes according to what he's campaigning on, that's fine with me.

Is it a risk? Sure. But it's also a risk to vote for the Bush-approved candidate who will say yes to things like Campaign Finance Reform, Medicare entitlements and amnesty for illegals because his masters tell him that's how he'll vote.
16 posted on 03/24/2004 10:53:20 PM PST by Tall_Texan (The War on Terror is mere collateral damage to the Democrats' War on Bush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Tall_Texan
Ken Bentson is the nephew of the ex Senator Bentson. That's a POOR justification. I just don't believe him. Streisant, Barbara, is a snake IMO. Do Republicans do this in general??? Give money to Democrats? He didn't give to BOTH. He didn't give to Kay or Cornyn. You mean to tell me that you'd put your money on some two bit congressmen (I'm from Houston and few liked Ken) who didn't stand a chance against Cornyn? Would YOU do that? I just don't trust people who give money to DemonRATS!!! In fact I'm tired of Republicans giving to Democrats.

Not only NO but Hell NO to Ben. He's just not trustworthy, IMO. I'll take a government worker any time.... a man who dedicates to civil service. I've worked for the Federal Government almost my entire career and I'm proud of it. We need more Republicans serving the people. Yes, and I worked for Carter, Gore, Clinton. Ben Streusand is just hitting below the belt.... trying to say McCaul worked for Clinton. Geez.... that's a terrible FIB. Ben has no character or scruples. In his business he's been fined many times. Is that OK??? Let him prove his loyalty to Republicans before getting elected.

I guess I should just be quiet, but when ex President Bush supports a candidate, he does it for good reason.... because the opposition is a slimeball.
17 posted on 03/24/2004 11:21:07 PM PST by Gracey (NOT Fonda Kerry and his 9.10 Democrat Party mentality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Tall_Texan
I want more conservatives
-------
You are truly fooled if you think Ben is a conservative. If you want a conservative look to John Culberson. Now there's a man of integrity.
18 posted on 03/24/2004 11:24:30 PM PST by Gracey (NOT Fonda Kerry and his 9.10 Democrat Party mentality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Gracey
Yes, and I worked for Carter, Gore, Clinton. Ben Streusand is just hitting below the belt.... trying to say McCaul worked for Clinton. Geez.... that's a terrible FIB.

A FIB is an untruth. It is truthful to say McCaul worked for Clinton and Reno. Just like I work for Time Warner. That doesn't mean I agree with everything Time Warner does or stands for, in fact I'm frequently repulsed by what they stand for (Time, CNN, Sex In The City, gay benefits, etc.). Someone *could* resign over something like that. Gary Aldrich did. Mike McCaul didn't, just like I haven't quit my job. I don't fault him for this but neither do I fault a businessman for contributing to some folks he disagrees with because he feels he needs political protection. Ask Bill Gates the punishment one can suffer for not greasing powerful political palms.

Ask yourself who the liberals want to win this race. Who does the Statesman endorse? Who does the Houston Chronicle endorse? Even the Austin Chronicle gave McCaul a backhanded (the most moderate of the right wing nuts) endorsement. Do you think any of them have an interest in furthering the conservative agenda? So why do they want McCaul elected, even as a lesser of two evils? If Streusand were a stealth Democrat, wouldn't the liberal papers do their best to slam McCaul rather than praise him?

Could it be because they know McCaul can at least be counted on to be beholden to his handlers? He doesn't have the money to run this campaign. Some folks are going to own him big time if he wins. And they'll expect him to vote as they tell him to vote. That's how politics work.

Streusand can get elected without the GOP's help. That's a dangerous thing to the powers that be. It could make him a pariah like Ron Paul but it could also turn him into the type of congressman that is independant enough to have some sway on close issues. If his vote cannot be taken for granted, it may mean he can barter some good stuff back to his district.

Ask yourself who gets wooed, wined and dined at party conventions - the guy the party can count to go along with the herd, or the undecided who need to be convinced before joining the pack? It's the latter. Let's let the GOP work for our vote rather than just taking us for granted.

BTW, I'm not attacking McCaul. I don't have a quarrel with people who vote for him. I'm not calling people "slimeball" and "liar". I'm just tired of getting less than we should from the party who claims to be conservative and I want somebody who will hold their feet to the fire instead of just being a rubber stamp. The Bush/Rove/Perry/Cornyn candidate is not going to rock the boat.

Maybe Streusand won't be the boat-rocker either but I know he'll be better positioned to be that guy, if elected, than a brokered McCaul would be. He'll owe too many chits to be his own man.

Weren't you steamed when Perry endorsed Green instead of the incumbent Justice Smith? So why should their endorsements impress me when I know they care more about putting their proxies into office than keeping in solid conservatives?

19 posted on 03/25/2004 12:55:02 AM PST by Tall_Texan (The War on Terror is mere collateral damage to the Democrats' War on Bush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Gracey
Have you questioned why a "republican" would give money to TWO Democrats AGAINST our two Republican senators

Yes I have. The answer to one is that he was on the finance comittee directly involved in banking / mortgage legislation impacting Ben's business. The other was an honorarium for a speech, also business related; it would have been illegal to pay the government official directly for his appearance. There was another not mentioned here, but in campaigns against him, which was over 25 years ago. All small amounts. He raised over 500,000 for Republicans, over the most recent years.

Streusand has never run for office before. He was not so concerned with "Purity", but with building a successful business, and in a highly govt. regulated business.

20 posted on 03/25/2004 4:15:34 AM PST by iamright (Imagine an ALL FREEPER GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Gracey
At least MCCaul gave service to his country in the DOJ

McCaul did not GIVE service to his country in DOJ. He's a lawyer. It was a job. Comments coming later about how he did that job.

I guess Streusand gave service to his country creating 600 jobs and financiang American homes, farms and businesses?

21 posted on 03/25/2004 4:19:06 AM PST by iamright (Imagine an ALL FREEPER GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Gracey
It's hard to figure out who you support. Want to tell us?

Gracey, let's be friends, we are both Texas Freepers, and I for one am glad you are here. No need for sarcastic attacks between us. We want the same thing, the best conservative representative for us in Washington.

But in case you were implying something, to be clear, I am not on Streusands staff, not paid anything by them, I did my research and made my own decision whom to support.

22 posted on 03/25/2004 4:24:57 AM PST by iamright (Imagine an ALL FREEPER GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SwinneySwitch
Thanks for the post. I had an SD17 committee meeting and couldn't be there. Hope to make the Katy forum:


District 10 Runoff Candidate Forum

Sponsored by Katy Area Chamber of Commerce, the Katy Area Republicans and the Waller County Republican Party.

March 30, 2004        7:00 PM

The Club at Falcon Point
24503 Falcon Point Dr; Katy, TX 77494 (directions)

The recent election resulted in a run-off for the newly created Congressional District 10. The candidates in this run-off are Michael McCaul and Ben Streusand. Both of these gentlemen have agreed to join us on Tuesday, March 30th for a Candidate's Forum. The run-off election will be April 13th. This election is of great importance to our community and we encourage you to join us.


Note current endorsements from candidate web sites:
McCaul
Streusand
  • Senator John Cornyn
  • Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
  • State Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson
  • State Representative Jack Stick
  • State Representative Todd Baxter
  • State Representative Corbin Van Arsdale
  • State Representative Terry Keel
  • Harris County Sheriff Tommy Thomas
  • Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal
  • Harris County Attorney Mike Stafford
  • Gerald Daugherty, Commissioner Travis County Precinct 3
  • Bob Vann, Constable, Travis County Precinct 2
  • Ron Hickman, Constable, Harris County Precinct 4
  • Dave Phillips, former candidate, U.S. Congress, CD10
  • Mayor Hap Harrington, City of Tomball
  • Texas Farm Bureau
  • Texas Homeschool Coalition
  • Young Conservatives of Texas
  • Dr. Joe Pojman
  • Executive Director, Alliance for Life
  • United Republicans of Harris County
  • Austin Police Association
  • Justice for All
  • Kaye T. Goolsby, VP-Legislation, Texas Federation of Republican Women
  • College Republicans
  • Carol Hanle, Past President Austin Republican Women
  • Dr. Charles Graham, Owner Southwest Stallion Station
  • Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas (C.L.E.A.T.)
  • Texas Cattle Feeders Association
  • Independent Bankers Association
  • Texas Association of Mortgage Brokers (federal and state associations)
  • Sportsman and Animal Owners Voting Alliance
  • Cathie Adams - Texas Eagle Forum
  • Davida Stike, Scott Gilmore and Jack Selman - Board Members, Texas Alliance for Life
  • Peggy M. Venable, Director, Americans for Prosperity
  • Grover Norquist - President, Americans for Tax Reform
  • Gary Bauer - President, American Values
  • State Representative Ray Allen
  • Deany Meinke - Daughters of Liberty Exec. Board

I am a volunteer McCaul supporter. More later ...

23 posted on 03/25/2004 6:31:29 AM PST by esarlls3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tall_Texan; iamright
Yes, it's possible Streusand is just a rich scam artist but I don't think he is and I'm willing to take that chance over another Bush rubber stamp. Otherwise, we get more Rick Perrys, more Rove RINOs.

THANK YOU! That is exactly what this race comes down to. Neither guy in it is a saint and both flunk the GOP Purity test, but McCaul has one additional item of baggage that Streusand doesn't: the RINO Rick Perry John Cornyn Karl Rove stamp.

Though I was never happy with the field of candidates in this race from the very get go, I will readily admit that I wasn't very opposed to McCaul at first. About a month or two ago I was even urging people to back him on the Texas forum, albeit reluctantly, as the least bad of the frontrunners (I personally backed Elliott because he was the most conservative). The more I've learned about McCaul though the less I've liked him, and now I am firmly convinced that Streusand is the lesser evil.

Perhaps the biggest personality issue I've had with McCaul is the fact that he is so damn whiny. True, the Johnny Devine attack mailers were anonymous and they were a cheap shot since nobody with Devine's camp put their names to them but that is how Devine has always campaigned - he's sleazy and does sleazy tricks like that. But does that mean the content of those mailers was false? No. Does that mean Mike McCaul is justified in whining like a little baby about being "unfairly attacked"? Hate to break it to him but he's in the wrong business if he thinks so. This is politics and he had every reason in the world to know his record would be scrutinized and attacked. His "poor me" act is an increasingly sorry show and that is the last kind of person I would pick to go up against the Dems. If he thinks it's tough now he'll be lunchmeat for the Dems when he gets to the floor of congress. Heck, he's still in the REPUBLICAN primary and he's already snivelling about how mean everyone is being to him!

McCaul's "honorable" and "sacrificing" record as a "public servant" is also turning into a tired act. The bottom line is that he's a career bureaucrat. He worked for the government for most of his adult life and that's it. There is nothing special about being a bureaucrat that somehow makes them more honorable than the private sector. He didn't work any harder than you or I, and he doesn't deserved to be honored for simply working any more than you or I do. For the record, I'll even admit to holding positions at various times in previous years in which I was an employee of more than one level of government. I certainly don't run around telling people that I "sacrificed" my resources for "service" on their behalf. I don't run around demanding that people should respect me more than they otherwise would since I was a "public servant." So why does Mike McCaul? Why should anybody "honor" him for the jobs he's held as a government employee any more than they should "honor" me or anyone else who has ever held a job in a political position? And especially so, why should they honor him more for making a permanent career out of Uncle Sam rather than those of us who have also worked in other jobs that weren't taxpayer funded? There is no intrinsic honor or gift of service in being a bureaucrat and Mike McCaul is arrogant to presume that there is.

That is essentially how I feel right now about his candidacy. When he entered the race I was open to hearing him out and I was open to letting him make his case as to why conservatives should support him. After three months all I've seen is a nonstop flow of "poor me" combined with a campaign message that boils down to little more than this: "support me (1) because I am a career government employee, (2) because I also agree with all the other candidates on all the issues, and (3) because Rick Perry, John Cornyn and a bunch of other people like them are supporting me too." I do not find a single aspect of that message appealing and unfortunately he hasn't conveyed anything beyond it to earn my support.

24 posted on 03/25/2004 1:49:18 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: esarlls3
IMHO McCaul's list, though longer, is the worse of the two. Virtually all of Streusand's endorsements are solid conservatives while a third to half of McCaul's are not. In particular, I am actually disinclined to support the guy by the endorsements of:

Cornyn (pro-illegals RINO)
Stick (sleazy)
Van Arsdale (sleazy)
Tommy Thomas (Alan Blakemore crony who pulled strings to get his unqualified kid appointed judge in Harris County by Governor RINO Rick)
Chuck Rosenthal (incompetant redneck DA who blew the sodomy case argument before the SCOTUS and embarrassed the entire state of Texas by looking like an ignorant fool during questioning, also a Blakemore crony)
United Republicans of Harris County (the pro-abortion moderate big tent PAC for Harris County)
Justice for All (sleazy and corrupt organization run by gun control advocate Dianne Clements)
College Republicans (As far as I know, Texas College Republicans is not allowed to make endorsements in primaries. This was the case when I was a CR chapter president and I don't believe it's changed since then - so McCaul may be claiming that endorsement illegitimately)

25 posted on 03/25/2004 1:57:13 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Tall_Texan
Streusand also funneled a $1000 donation to liberal Democrat Eddie Bernice Johnson out of Dallas through his Texas Mortgage Bankers Association PAC.

I listed the details on this before, but no one seemed to pick it up.

Money to Kreuger 10+ years ago? It was 10+ years ago. Who cares?

Money to Bentsen 3 years ago? Questionable, but could be justified due to "business considerations".

$1000 to liberal Democrat Eddie Bernice Johnson 2-1/2 years ago? She doesn't sit on any mortgage or financial committees - no justification there.

I don't say it excludes him from claiming GOP credentials - and if he's elected I think he'll vote conservative 99% of the time - but it certainly raises a red flag.

Innocuous Dems like Bentsen, Krueger? No biggie. A lib Dem Maxine Waters clone like Eddie Bernice Johnson? Hmmm....

That said, it certainly doesn't absolve Mr. McCaul from his questionable associations with "moneyed interests", but that's another tale for another time.
26 posted on 03/26/2004 9:02:09 AM PST by KatyTexasGOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: esarlls3
John Devine has also endorsed Streusand, FWIW.
27 posted on 03/26/2004 9:28:42 AM PST by Tall_Texan (The War on Terror is mere collateral damage to the Democrats' War on Bush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Tall_Texan
Streusand: Not running negative campaign

By ARTHUR HAHN/Managing Editor Tuesday, March 23, 2004 1:24 PM CST






Ben Streusand rejects claims of his U.S. House runoff opponent that he is conducting a "negative campaign."

Streusand was here Monday for a campaign stop, first meeting with a handful of supporters at the courthouse and then hosting a dinner at a local restaurant.

He is locked in a runoff with Mike McCaul for the U.S. House District 10 seat, an election that is shaping up as the most expensive House race in the country.

Streusand and McCaul have spent more than $2.6 million on the race, most of it their own money.

Streusand said McCaul has questioned his "Republican credentials."

"I'll gladly put my Republican credentials against his any day of the week," said Streusand, who pointed out that he has long been involved in the GOP, raising hundreds of thousands of dollars for party candidates that have included President Bush.


Streusand, who runs a Houston mortgage company, has pumped more than $1.3 million of his own money into his campaign, according to the latest campaign finance reports filed in February.

McCaul has put at least $650,000 into his own campaign.

Streusand has spent more of his own money on his campaign than any other congressional candidate in the nation and McCaul ranks third, according to the campaign finance disclosures.

Streusand said it is necessary to spend large amounts of money because of the size of the district, which stretches from Travis County to Harris County.

"There is no general election (Democrats didn't field a candidate), so most of the money is going to be spent on the primary," he said. "Plus, the district has two of the most expensive media markets in the country in Houston and Austin."

Streusand said McCaul has campaigned "virtually in one county," his home Travis County.

Streusand received 28 percent of the vote to McCaul's 24 percent, but since neither got more than 50 percent, they were forced into a runoff that will be held April 13.

Streusand announced Monday that he has picked up the endorsement of the third-place finisher in the primary, Judge John Devine. Devine got 21 percent of the votes.

Devine, who was with Streusand on his campaign stops here, said McCaul is "a government lawyer, for crying out loud."

McCaul is a former federal prosecutor who resigned last year to run for office.

Devine said he decided to back Streusand because of his business experience.

"He's had to manage budgets. He's created jobs," said Devine.

Devine said he met with both Streusand and McCaul and "evaluated their positions on key issues."

"I strongly believe Ben will be a representative for the entire district," he said.

28 posted on 03/26/2004 9:50:55 AM PST by Tall_Texan (The War on Terror is mere collateral damage to the Democrats' War on Bush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Tall_Texan
'L' Word in Air in Expensive Texas Republican Race
Wed Mar 24, 2004 02:29 PM ET

By Jeff Franks
HOUSTON (Reuters) - The most expensive House primary race so far this year has degenerated into a mud-slinging battle between two conservative Republicans accusing each other of being a closet liberal.

More than $2.6 million has been spent in a race that is now a runoff between Houston mortgage banker Ben Streusand and Austin lawyer Mike McCaul to win the Republican nomination for the remapped 10th Congressional district that stretches 150 miles from Austin to Houston.

Both are running on a staunchly conservative platform -- anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, pro-gun, pro-tax cuts and backing President Bush in all things -- to appeal to the suburbanites and small town residents who make up most of the district's voters.

The stakes are high because the victor in the April 13 vote has no Democratic opponent in the November election.

Streusand, with 28 percent of the vote, and McCaul, with 24 percent, were the top two finishers out of eight candidates in the March 9 primary.

Since neither won a majority, they were forced into a runoff and ever since have been linking each other to some of the Democrats that Republicans most love to hate.

Streusand, said one McCaul television commercial, once gave money to a "liberal Democrat" senatorial candidate "to help Ted Kennedy control the U.S. Senate."

Former federal prosecutor McCaul, a Streusand TV ad said, "worked for Bill Clinton and Janet Reno for six years, and Reno picked McCaul to defend her actions at Waco."

Brandishing the "L" word in Republican primaries is a popular ploy because the party faithful demand adherence to their brand of conservatism, so creating doubt about an opponent's fealty can be effective, said University of Texas government professor Bruce Buchanan.

"They are polarized in opposition to Democrats in a way that makes any association with the other side the kiss of death," he said. "It's that kind of climate."

The 10th Congressional district was held by Democrats for decades -- Lyndon Johnson was its representative in the days of the New Deal -- but got changed into a Republican stronghold in a controversial redistricting last year.

With a push from U.S. House Republican Leader Tom DeLay of Sugar Land, Texas, the state legislature redrew the Texas congressional map to favor the election of more Republicans.
Democratic incumbent Lloyd Doggett chose to run in another district, where he won his party's nomination in the primary.

According to the Houston Chronicle, the $2.6 million spent in the race is the most for any House seat so far in this election season. Spending is high, experts say, because candidates must buy television time in two large markets -- Austin and Houston.

Campaign finance records show Streusand, who is a multimillionaire, spent about half of the $2.6 million total and has outspent McCaul by almost two-to-one.

But McCaul has been endorsed by key Texas Republicans such as Sens. John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison.


29 posted on 03/26/2004 9:54:03 AM PST by Tall_Texan (The War on Terror is mere collateral damage to the Democrats' War on Bush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Tall_Texan
TEXAS CONGRESSIONAL RACE
MOST COSTLY IN NATION

HOUSTON (AP) - The District 10 congressional race is shaping up as the most expensive House race in the country, with Republican rivals Ben Streusand and Michael McCaul footing most of the bill.

Together, the competitive pair have spent $2.6 million so far and both plan to raise more money as they head into an April 13 runoff. The election is key because there is no Democratic contender in the district stretching from Austin to Houston, so the winner takes the seat.

"It is a family fight," said Bob Stein, dean of the school of social sciences at Rice University. "One of the consequences of redistricting is it is making it increasingly expensive to run for office."

Last year, the GOP-controlled Texas Legislature redrew the boundaries for congressional voting districts in the state to give Republicans a better chance at taking control of the state's delegation, split 16-16 between the parties.

The old District 10 seat was held by U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, a Democrat who decided to run in the new 25th District, which extends from Austin to the Mexican border. District 10 became an open seat with a 64 percent Republican voting history.

District 10 also spans two sizable media markets, Austin and Houston, making it expensive for rookie candidates like Streusand and McCaul to get their name known through TV ads.

"By making these districts so geographically large ... you have made it an expensive district to run in," Stein said. "It has always taken money to run for office."

Streusand, who runs a Houston mortgage company, has pumped more than $1.3 million of his own money into his campaign, according to the latest campaign finance reports filed in February. He has raised about $55,000 from a handful of attorneys, bankers and executives, including $1,000 from Robert Lanham, a vice president with roadbuilding giant Williams Brothers Construction Co.

McCaul has put at least $650,000 into his own campaign and raised more than $260,000 from individuals such as House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's brother, Randolph DeLay; Thomas Hicks, chairman Southwest Sports Group, the company that owns the Texas Rangers and Dallas Stars; Ken Leonard, president of Ignite! Learning, a company founded by presidential brother Neil Bush; Erle Nye, chairman of the board of TXU Corp.; and Houston Astros' owner Drayton McLane.

Streusand has spend more of his own money on his campaign than any other congressional candidate in the nation and McCaul ranks third, according to the campaign finance disclosures.

The District 5 race in North Carolina, where candidates have spent $2.4 million, ranks second when it comes to expenses so far this year. Both Republicans and Democrats see the seat as a key win, said Kerry Haynie, a political science professor at Duke University.

"Candidates who can raise a lot of money or have access to a lot of money have a huge advantage," Wise said. "The vast majority of the time, and for House races it is 9 out of 10 times that, the candidate who spends the most money, wins."

McCaul is a former federal prosecutor who resigned last year to run for office. His father-in-law, Lowry Mays, is chief executive officer of San-Antonio-based Clear Channel Communications and heads Texas A&M University's board of regents. He plans a fund-raiser for McCaul on March 31 at a private Houston home where former President George H.W. Bush is the guest of honor.

"No one is more respected than George and Barbara Bush in the Republican Party," McCaul spokesman Ted Delisi said Thursday. "We are doing our best to compete with Streusand's bottomless pit."

Streusand spokesman Marc Cowart said the March 9 primary indicated that voters aren't "going to be told who to vote for by the Washington establishment."

Streusand received 28 percent of the vote to McCaul's 24 percent, but since neither got more than 50 percent, they were forced into a runoff election.

The candidates have a way to go to beat the record for the most expensive House race in history. That happened in 2000 when California Democrat Adam Schiff raised $4.7 million to pull-off an upset of Republican incumbent James Rogan, who brought in $6.9 million but was jeopardized by his role as a prosecutor in former President Bill Clinton's impeachment trial, said Steven Wise of the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics in Washington, D.C.

30 posted on 03/26/2004 9:57:30 AM PST by Tall_Texan (The War on Terror is mere collateral damage to the Democrats' War on Bush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Tall_Texan
The last three posts are various articles about the race that turned up on a Google News search. The first is from the Brenham Banner Press which seems to be more interested in this race than either the Statesman or the Houston Chronicle. The second is from Reuters. The third is from the AP. They are posted for informational purposes, not as a way to endorse either candidate.

While my mind is about 80% made up on this issue, I accept that others can disagree. It really depends on what you want from your state representative and, even as FReepers, we can disagree as to what is most important.

I'd like to see more news reports but this race just doesn't seem to generate much interest in the liberal media. I found that out on election night when KLBJ's coverage ignored the race altogether and focused on Lloyd Doggett's race in the Valley.

Both campaigns are engaging in distortions to paint the other as "not conservative enough" or "not Republican enough". I reject the charges on both sides. What I keep looking at is what each candidate brings to the table if elected. What it all boils down to me is whether you want a conservative that's part of the Bush/Rove/Perry machine or whether you want one who isn't. Reasonable people can see differently about this so I have no complaint with those who back the other candidate.

My point is that an informed voter is a better voter.
31 posted on 03/26/2004 10:18:47 AM PST by Tall_Texan (The War on Terror is mere collateral damage to the Democrats' War on Bush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Tall_Texan
Streusand, who runs a Houston mortgage company, has pumped more than $1.3 million of his own money into his campaign, according to the latest campaign finance reports filed in February. He has raised about $55,000 from a handful of attorneys, bankers and executives, including $1,000 from Robert Lanham, a vice president with roadbuilding giant Williams Brothers Construction Co.

McCaul has put at least $650,000 into his own campaign and raised more than $260,000 from individuals such as House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's brother, Randolph DeLay; Thomas Hicks, chairman Southwest Sports Group, the company that owns the Texas Rangers and Dallas Stars; Ken Leonard, president of Ignite! Learning, a company founded by presidential brother Neil Bush; Erle Nye, chairman of the board of TXU Corp.; and Houston Astros' owner Drayton McLane.

Who has support from individual donors? Who has support of only "a handful of attorneys"?

I find it interesting that Streusand has outspent McCaul 2 to 1 and is still struggling to keep ahead. Someone's message is resonating with voters even though it has not had as much airtime.

32 posted on 03/26/2004 2:04:27 PM PST by esarlls3 (Volunteer McCaul Supporter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: esarlls3; Registered
More clever word games.

The sentence says "a handful of attorneys, bankers and executives."

The other sentence says "individual such as" Tom Delay's brother and Neil Bush's company, the owner of the Texas Rangers and the owner of the Houston Astros. That's not exactly grass roots support either.

BTW, did you notice McCaul's last campaign flyer? It has four pictures: President Bush with McCaul, Governor Perry with McCaul, Sen. Cornyn with McCaul, and (IIRC) McCaul with his family. Did you notice than it every last photo, McCaul is exactly the same size, exactly the same head angle, exactly the same smile and always to the right-hand side of the picture?

Now I'm not doubting McCaul has their endorsements but, hell, even Registered can make more realistic photoshop composites. It doesn't take a lot of talent to take the same family photo and paste it into photos of Bush, Perry and Cornyn.

Streusand's photo with Bush at least looks authentic. It just makes McCaul looks more like a phony.
33 posted on 03/26/2004 3:16:32 PM PST by Tall_Texan (The War on Terror is mere collateral damage to the Democrats' War on Bush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Tall_Texan
"John Devine has also endorsed Streusand, FWIW."


Not much, IMO
34 posted on 03/26/2004 10:37:36 PM PST by YCTHouston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
So basically, GOPCap, to summarize your MANY posts on this subject, every elected Republican in the state of Texas, from local office on up,(with the exception of the sainted, anti-defense Ron Paul) is either sleazy or RINO?

As you know, I agree with you on a few of them, but I'm left wondering what your attachment to the Republican party is if you consider all our leaders to be RINO's. The kind of "purity" you demand is utopian. I guess you've got St. Ron, but a party of one isn't much of a party.

Politics sometimes means compromise. It means working with people you wouldn't necessarily want to vacation with (even in the Bahamas). And sometimes, it means voting for someone who doesn't gratuitously pander to you because he has the experience and integrity to achieve realistic policy objectives.

35 posted on 03/26/2004 10:49:30 PM PST by YCTHouston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: YCTHouston
So basically, GOPCap, to summarize your MANY posts on this subject, every elected Republican in the state of Texas, from local office on up,(with the exception of the sainted, anti-defense Ron Paul) is either sleazy or RINO?

No, just those mentioned.

As you know, I agree with you on a few of them, but I'm left wondering what your attachment to the Republican party is if you consider all our leaders to be RINO's.

My attachment is as an NFRAer/RLCer type Republican who wants to make the party more conservative from the inside. The primary is exactly the place to do that so I happily use it to oppose the non-conservative party "leaders" and their hand picked candidates of choice (of which McCaul is a prime example if there ever was one).

And sometimes, it means voting for someone who doesn't gratuitously pander to you because he has the experience and integrity to achieve realistic policy objectives.

That's a valid point and it's also one of the reasons I oppose McCaul (and I'm no Streusand fan either for that matter, though given the present knowledge he is slightly less bad than McCaul IMHO). I know he has a realistic policy objective and I know he has the experience in government to help bring about that objective. It's the objective itself that I find so offensive as that objective entails growing the government. That objective entails the wholly undesirable Perry/Cornyn/Rove-style model of "big government conservatism" and its correlaries in amnesty light and medicare. As for integrity, McCaul's "undocumented workers" freudian slip is a dead giveaway that he does not share the same position on illegal immigrants that we do. Some people may think that's fine and some may be willing to accept him on the grounds that he stands with us on other things but I consider immigration to be a core and central issue - one that I expect my candidates to take a hard line on with very little room for exception.

36 posted on 03/27/2004 10:18:24 AM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
March 26, 2004, 10:22PM

Duel for 10th District waged on ties to Dems
By JOHN WILLIAMS
Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle Political Writer
There has been more discussion about Democratic politicians than Republican issues in the GOP runoff between Ben Streusand and Mike McCaul for the 10th Congressional District.

Streusand has run ads tying McCaul to Democrats Bill Clinton and Janet Reno.

McCaul has countered with an ad noting that Streusand contributed campaign money to Democrats Bob Krueger and Ken Bentsen. And Streusand didn't vote for President Bush in the 2000 Republican primary, McCaul says.

The spate of Democrat-baiting has both candidates crying foul, each accusing the other of starting mudslinging that forced him to respond in kind.

"I am deeply disappointed that he has chosen to go completely negative," McCaul said. "He's not even running on his record. The voters are tired of this type of campaigning, and I think they will see it for what it is, a distortion of my career."

Streusand said, "He has attacked my Republican credentials. As a result, I attacked his."

"I assumed it was part of running a Republican primary," he said. "So, I don't have the same amount of self-righteous indignation as he has shown."

Streusand and McCaul will meet in the April 13 GOP primary runoff for the newly drawn congressional district that stretches from Houston to Austin. The winner will head to the U.S. House next year because Democrats did not field a candidate in the district, crafted last year to elect a Republican.

In what has become the nation's most expensive congressional race, Streusand took 28 percent of the vote and McCaul took 24 percent to eliminate six other candidates in the first round on March 9.

As of Feb. 18, the most recent campaign finance report date, Streusand had contributed more of his own money than any other congressional candidate -- $1.34 million, or 96 percent of the $1.4 million he had raised. McCaul was the nation's third-biggest personal spender at $647,000, or 70 percent of the $929,000 he had raised.

McCaul has accused Streusand of using his financial lead to spread lies about him in an attempt to buy the election.

In the campaign ads, Streusand links McCaul to former President Clinton and his attorney general, Reno, because McCaul worked in the U.S. attorney's office while Reno ran the U.S. Justice Department. In addition, Streusand says, McCaul did not make political contributions to Republican Sen. John Cornyn's 2002 senatorial race. Cornyn has endorsed McCaul.

McCaul said the allegations are "ridiculous."

McCaul was hired as an assistant U.S. attorney during the administration of former President Bush, who is supporting him. He served throughout the Clinton administration and during the current Bush administration until October, when he stepped down to run for office.

On Wednesday, former President Bush will attend a McCaul fund-raiser being hosted by McCaul's father-in-law, Lowry Mays, the chief executive officer of San Antonio-based Clear Channel Communications and head of Texas A&M University's board of regents.

"My opponent is trying to twist and spin the truth to make voters believe I am something I am not," McCaul said.

Streusand campaign manager Marc Cowart said the ads are factually accurate.

"Obviously, he's twisting the truth and spinning the truth to make voters believe one thing," Cowart said. "We have a different perspective."

McCaul has attacked Streusand, noting that he gave campaign contributions to Democrats Krueger and Bentsen in their unsuccessful bids for U.S. Senate.

Streusand, a Houston mortgage banker, said that while he has given to selected Democrats, he has given more than $100,000 to Republicans, including President Bush in 2000.

He said he didn't vote in the 2000 GOP primary because it was obvious Bush was going to win. He said he supported Bush in the general election over Democrat Al Gore.

"My contributions to Republicans are extremely well known," Streusand said. "Mr. McCaul wants to distort that."

Even as both candidates are trying to link their opponents to Democrats, they are trying to tie themselves to Republicans.

McCaul leads in endorsements from public officials, including former President Bush, Cornyn, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, Harris County Sheriff Tommy Thomas and Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal.

Streusand has the support of prominent social conservatives, including Cathy Adams of the Texas Eagle Forum and Gary Bauer, president of American Values.

Streusand has picked up the endorsement of the third-place candidate, former state District Judge John Devine. McCaul has been endorsed by the fourth-place finisher, lawyer Dave Phillips.

Besides trying to get an edge based on such associations, each candidate is taking shots at the other's record.

One Streusand commercial complains that McCaul did not push for a long-enough sentence against Johnny Chung when McCaul was a federal prosecutor.

Chung pleaded guilty to making illegal contributions to Democrats, including the Clinton-Gore campaign in 1996, and for tax evasion as part of an influence-peddling scheme involving the Chinese government.

"This Chinese agent illegally funneled $30,000 to Clinton's campaign," Streusand's ad says. "McCaul got him off with just five years' probation."

McCaul said that as a federal prosecutor, he helped uncover the operation linking Chinese officials with the Clinton White House, getting help from Chung as part of a plea bargain.

"If it weren't for a Republican prosecutor, me, we never would have known about this," McCaul said.

McCaul launched a mail-out Wednesday criticizing Streusand for recently moving into the district. It shows photos of two babies and notes they have lived there longer than Streusand.
37 posted on 03/27/2004 10:32:26 AM PST by Tall_Texan (The War on Terror is mere collateral damage to the Democrats' War on Bush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Tall_Texan
It just makes McCaul looks more like a phony.

Either that, or McCaul simply has a really good rehearsed camera pose in which he stands at the same place, gives the same smile, and tilts his head the same way in an attempt to look genuine. Given that he is a career bureaucrat who is used to being photographed around federal government bigshots I wouldn't, sad as it may be, rule out that possibility.

38 posted on 03/27/2004 10:35:09 AM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
The only differences in the photos are the amount of gray in his hair. Maybe he has his hair color touched up at the same place Clinton does.
39 posted on 03/27/2004 10:50:57 AM PST by Tall_Texan (The War on Terror is mere collateral damage to the Democrats' War on Bush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Tall_Texan; YCTHouston
Both campaigns are engaging in distortions to paint the other as "not conservative enough" or "not Republican enough". I reject the charges on both sides.

That's the thing that some people who are backing horses in this race do not seem to understand. In a "Republican Purity" test neither candidate is ever gonna come out on top. Campaigning on the opponent's lack of purity, which both are apparently doing, only makes them both look like flaming hypocrites.

Streusand's position in this race has been compared to that of Peter Wareing a few years ago and I'll readily admit that the similarities are many. Wareing was a millionaire who bankrolled his own campaigns. Streusand is a millionaire bankrolling his own campaign. Wareing had a history of giving money to candidates on both sides including some particularly nasty democrats. Streusand has given money to both sides including some of those same democrats.

A key difference in the campaign dynamics distinguishes this year's District 10 race from the past ones in Districts 7 and 31 though: the runoff opponent. Both times that Wareing ran posed him against candidates with generally unimpeachable Republican Purity credentials, Culberson and Carter. I think the most that ever came up against either of them was that Culberson had voted in a single Democrat primary as a teenager in the late 60's or early 70's. Beyond that, there was simply no comparison - Wareing's GOP purity credentials were severely deficient when compared to both of his opponents. Not so in Streusand-McCaul where McCaul has his own baggage in this area called the Clinton Administration. That doesn't negate Streusand's comparable baggage but it does mean that (a) neither of them will ever win a GOP purity contest against each other and (b) the absence of a substantial advantage for either candidate in that category renders it relatively useless as a determinant in this particular vote unlike with Carter and Culberson.

Turning next to track records, we find that Wareing - the millionaire businessman - ran against two candidates with proven conservative records in elected office. The first was a conservative state rep who had one of the strongest voting records in the legislature. The other was a law-and-order type judge with a hard line conservative reputation on the bench. Both had stood before the voters before and both had met with approval from demonstrably conservative constituencies. Not so with McCaul though. His opponent is still a millionaire businessman, but he lacks the record that both Carter and Culberson had before him. Instead, his claim to fame is being an appointed "public servant" (read: career bureaucrat) and his reputation as a "conservative," if it can even be called that, is nothing more than the fact that he hung around John Cornyn, a politician of comparably suspect conservative credentials.

Third, when Wareing ran he did so as a self-financed candidate against two others who drew the majority of their funding from individual contributions that they raised. Streusand, the comparable millionare candidate in this race, is still self financed. But McCaul is no impoverished GOP footsoldier himself by comparison. Unlike either Carter or Culberson, McCaul has been able to finance his campaign with well in excess of the six figure mark out of his own pockets. True, he's raised more in private donations though they seem to derive from sources that are not substantially advantageous to Streusand's (i.e. McCaul is backed by his own share of sports team owners and downtown businessmen).

My point in all this? Virtually everything that made Wareing so bad in relation to his opponents in the previous two campaigns is of little comparitive value in this one because the millionaire candidate's opponent in this one has virtually none of the substantial advantages that either Carter or Culberson had as candidates versus the other millionaire. At face value, McCaul has the exact same problems as Streusand (i.e. lack of GOP purity). At his best, McCaul has very mediocre advantages over Streusand's problems (i.e. he's bankrolling the majority of his own campaign too, only he hasn't spent quite as much). And at his worst, McCaul actually has some disadvantages to Streusand (i.e. his career in the federal bureaucracy, his suspicious position on immigration, and his extremely close relationship to Cornyn and Perry).

Ethically? Well, that could change pending the answer to how Streusand got Steve Hotze's backing. Speculation that he may have bought it leads to a strike against him, but I want a substantive answer before making that determination.

40 posted on 03/27/2004 11:05:34 AM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Tall_Texan
"So, I don't have the same amount of self-righteous indignation as he has shown."

I think that's a valid point and it is one of the things that turns me away from McCaul the most. The guy is downright arrogant about the fact that he was a bureaucrat, or "public servant" as he likes to call it. Whenever he gets criticized of this he seems to fire up the whine machine and starts this pseudo-moralistic line about how unfair it is to attack him. Streusand's no saint in this area but his reactions to being attacked on his own deficiencies are substantially more professional than McCaul's (in fact, if McCaul had used a little more professionalism in responding to those attacks rather than pseudo-moralism and crocodile tears, I might be less inclined to oppose him).

41 posted on 03/27/2004 11:15:08 AM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
One major different between this run-off and others is that there is no Democrat or Independant running. The reason this run-off is expensive is that it is, in all regards, the general election, barring the unexpected death of the winner.

So this is really a November campaign being waged in spring. Because of that, voters need not worry about who is perceived as the most electable or who would have the greater resources to defeat a Democrat in November.

As I've said before, in the primary, you vote your hopes and in the general election, you vote your fears. While Streusand isn't everything I hope for, he does send a message that we will not just blindly support Rove's annointed candidate.

The Rove gang have been noticably absent in supporting people who upset their preferred guy. Witness how little they did for Schundler in New Jersey and Simon in California. The Bushies talk a good game about a "big tent" but they don't seem to make room for conservatives in that tent who beat their annointed "electable" moderates in the primaries.

Since we don't need to worry about defeating a Democrat in November, all that pomp about attracting crossovers and choosing someone "electable" is irrelevant. Frankly, I like that thought and I plan to take advantage of it by electing what I perceive as the most conservative option.
42 posted on 03/27/2004 12:53:10 PM PST by Tall_Texan (The War on Terror is mere collateral damage to the Democrats' War on Bush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
If it's true that Steve Hotze is support Streusand, there's only one reason why ...$$$$$$ pay off time. Now is that the type candidate you want to support???? I'm shocked.

I still say that when practically all the elected officials that WE voted to elect are supporting McCaul, including an ex President Bush, both Senators, and a long list of State officers, including Jerry Patterson, what is it that they know that we don't know. Why shouldn't we trust our elected officials judgment, (not entirely) when Streusand had NO elected offices supporting him and McCaul has most of them.

And you are supporting someone who gave money to Democrats against our Republicans, including Bernice Johnson. Ugh.
43 posted on 03/28/2004 11:33:48 AM PST by Gracey (NOT Fonda Kerry and his 9.10 Democrat Party mentality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Gracey
If it's true that Steve Hotze is support Streusand, there's only one reason why ...$$$$$$ pay off time.

Normally yes. Though there are always two possible scenarios with Hotze. He endorses because (a) somebody pays him or (b) the other guy refuses his advances for payment, making him mad and causing him to endorse the opponent. Scenario (a) is more frequent, though I do know of him doing the other as well. I am currently attempting to track down verification of what exactly transpired with Streusand and, if it turns out to be what you suspect, I'll happily denounce his candidacy. That won't make me any friendlier towards McCaul, but I will no longer believe that Streusand is any better.

I still say that when practically all the elected officials that WE voted to elect are supporting McCaul, including an ex President Bush, both Senators, and a long list of State officers, including Jerry Patterson, what is it that they know that we don't know.

Patterson is a valid endorsement and one I generally respect. I don't respect the endorsements of any of those others though, regardless of what they know or do not know. Remember, Cornyn apparently "knows" something that caused him to endorse Paul Green. So did Perry. It's just that what they "know" ammounts to nothing more than the fact that Steven Wayne Smith embarrassed Perry's hand picked David Souter wannabe for the supreme court. So I really can't justify throwing my support to somebody based on the fact that he's got elected official endorsements - I guess I'm just becoming cynical ;-)

44 posted on 03/28/2004 4:35:14 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
While Streusand seems to not have impressed many of the statewides (or
was it certain media mogul who DID impress them???), his endorsements
are solid conservative all the way. I, for one, find it hard to argue
with endorsements like Cathie Adams & Peggy Venable. Paul Bettencourt
isn't too shabby, either, and no one can call Devine a squish. I have
been following this from the fall, and what I have noticed is that
Streusand has been consistently out in front on the issues from day 1.
Taxes, immigration, etc... He has been very specific and, to my mind,
right on. The only thing McCaul ever talks about is that he was Chief
Counter Terrorism Officer at the FBI. You know what? There is no such
thing! Which leads me to other fabrications... his quoting of
endorsements by Terry Keel, the Texas Mortgage Bankers Assoc & others
have been retracted over the past couple of weeks... very
impressive...

The only experience of any prominence seems to have been when McCaul
was hand-picked by Reno to defend her actions in Waco. If he has such
strong character (and doesn't exactly need the money), why didn't he
say no? Prominent lawyers at Justice DID say no and quit when working
with Reno, in addition to the MANY who were swept out when she first
took office...
45 posted on 03/31/2004 8:30:22 AM PST by mary elizabeth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: mary elizabeth
Your right - McCaul's message is simply not impressive. I mean, if the guy would only add a little substance to his campaign! I've been waiting for 3 months to see if he'll distinguish himself on any issue and he hasn't. His message is STILL the same old thing it was back in January and February and the beginning of March. It condenses down to four points:

1. "Vote for me because I'm a career government bureaucrat."
2. "Vote for me because I'm John Cornyn's/Rick Perry's/the party elite's (pick one) candidate."
3. "Vote for me because I agree with all that stuff the other candidates are saying too."
4. "Quit picking on me!"

He's entirely unimpressive and, with a message like that, unfit to run for dog catcher much less congress. JMHO.

46 posted on 03/31/2004 9:57:08 AM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: mary elizabeth
The only experience of any prominence seems to have been when McCaul was hand-picked by Reno to defend her actions in Waco.

Your presumption here is that what Streusand published was the whole truth. Here is what really happened:

Two years after the tragedy in Waco, the Justice Department mobilized many lawyers to assist with the Congressional hearings. McCaul was one of many lawyers asked to attend the hearings, like scores of other Republicans and prosecutors in the Justice Department. Michael McCaul was never lead counsel to Janet Reno.


Why I Support Michael McCaul

I met privately with McCaul and Streusand last fall. I sent questions about issues to each candidate. McCaul answered, Streusand didn’t. I met each candidate in public forums for semi-private discussions of issues. I studied their campaign materials. I attended the Katy debate of all 8 candidates. I am volunteering my time and effort to support Michael McCaul because:

McCaul's experience as Chief of Terrorism and National Security (covering threats to Texas, including border security with Mexico) is needed in Congress to fund and oversee anti-terrorism efforts.

McCaul understands the FairTax (see FairTax.org) – the only tax reform plan that untaxes U.S. exports and brings jobs back to the U.S. without tariffs, subsidies, or government regulations.

McCaul is not “just another lawyer”. He has honorably served Texas and the United States as a prosecutor. He has created innovative programs to protect our families from criminals.

McCaul has experience using laws passed by Congress (including the Patriot Act) to prosecute criminals. He knows the civil liberty issues surrounding intelligence and law enforcement.

McCaul has support from: Former President George H. W. Bush, Senators John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison, Former Senator Phil Gramm, Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson, Representative Corbin Van Arsdale, Sheriff Tommy Thomas, District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal, County Attorney Mike Stafford, Young Conservatives of Texas, College Republicans, and more (see: www.McCaulForCongress.com).

PLEASE JOIN ME IN VOTING FOR MICHAEL MCCAUL.
THE WINNER OF THIS RACE WILL BE OUR
REPRESENTATIVE FOR MANY YEARS
PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO VOTE
Early voting: April 5 to 8 . Election: April 13

47 posted on 03/31/2004 11:15:04 AM PST by esarlls3 (Volunteer McCaul Supporter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: esarlls3
To touch on your points for McCaul, I will agree with you on several points... I have no reason to believe Mike is not an outstanding lawyer, and will serve us well when it is time to write new laws. But that's not what I want. I want someone to start REPEALING laws and CUTTING BUDGETS. You cite McCaul's working on the Patriot Act. I would bet many conservatives, including myself, are none too happy
about the Patriot Act. You cite his support of the Fair Tax. This must be new for Mike, as Streusand was putting out literature LAST YEAR discussing this in detail. Mike just started talking about it. You also cite the supposed experience he touts as "Chief of Terrorism" in DC. As I mentioned before, there is NO SUCH THING. Feel free to call the FBI & DOJ to find out for yourself.

You are correct that we must be careful, as the man we elect will probably be around for awhile. We need someone who is taking strong specific stands on the conservative issues we care about, like standing up to the Cornyn/Bush immigration plan (McCaul's "big buddies"). It is up to all of us to choose wisely.
48 posted on 03/31/2004 2:09:08 PM PST by mary elizabeth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: mary elizabeth
I want someone to start REPEALING laws and CUTTING BUDGETS.

I challenged both Streusand and McCaul to cut spending. I told them I don't want any pork coming home - I want someone who will challenge Ron Paul for the Taxpayers Best Friend award. Here is what McCaul says:

Federal spending is driven by government bureaucracies and wasteful programs that are systematically funded, year after year, through massive “omnibus” spending bills which virtually no one actually reads, especially those in Congress who vote to spend the money. I strongly favor a Federal Agency “Sunset” Law so that each bureaucracy and every single funded program must justify its existence,. This system in Texas has saved millions of dollars, and it is time we made Washington more closely account for every expenditure.

You cite McCaul's working on the Patriot Act. I would bet many conservatives, including myself, are none too happy about the Patriot Act.

I did not cite "McCaul's working on the Patriot Act". I cited McCaul's "using laws ... to prosecute criminals". This includes using the Patriot Act as a prosecutor. I met with McCaul last November with about 20 other activists. One of the main concerns raised in our meeting was over the Patriot Act. We let him know loud and clear that there are parts of it that concern us and we do not want it extended indefinitely. He is well aware of the issues and is in a position to discuss what is essential from a law enforcement perspective and what may be helpful but not essential and not worth the loss of liberty and due process. There are few in Congress who could speak from experience on this issue.

You cite his support of the Fair Tax. This must be new for Mike, as Streusand was putting out literature LAST YEAR discussing this in detail. Mike just started talking about it.

McCaul has been speaking about the FairTax in every speaking event I have seen since last November. He has also included it in some of his mailers. Granted, he has not spent as much money on advertising as Streusand. I have spoken at length with McCaul and Streusand about the FairTax as this is a hot topic for me. Streusand's understanding is that it is a hot topic. He has a general idea about how it works and that it gets rid of the IRS. He does not understand how it will impact our economy in various areas. McCaul has a much more detailed understanding of the potential for the FairTax and how it will help solve many problems, including Trade Deficit, Jobs, and Illegal Immigration. In fact, McCaul has asked specific questions about how the FairTax will impact different sectors of the economy.

You also cite the supposed experience he touts as "Chief of Terrorism" in DC. As I mentioned before, there is NO SUCH THING. Feel free to call the FBI & DOJ to find out for yourself.

McCaul's position was: "Chief, Terrorism and National Security Section within the Criminal Division of the United States Attorney's Office for the Western Judicial District of Texas". I apologize if my abbreviation was misleading. If you want a phone number to call to verify his position, I can probably get you one. His duties included:

McCaul was in this position last summer when threats against were received against Texas Refineries over the 4th of July weekend. He was on duty reviewing the threat, analyzing the intelligence, wishing for better data, worrying about vulnerabilities, etc.

I feel this experience is especially helpful in todays environment. I don't know of any others in Congress who have experience working on this side of the Terrorism issue. This is the biggest threat to our economic and physical security we face in today's world. I want someone in Congress who knows the issues they will have to address.

McCaul supports securing the Mexican border, including the usage of National Guard, if needed. This is required for National Security and Illegal Immigration issues. He does NOT support the Bush plan to let illegal aliens stay here as legal residents.

Yes, we must choose wisely. Is this the experience we need in Congress? Or do we need a Mortgage Banker sitting in Congress?

I choose McCaul. Please join me.

49 posted on 04/01/2004 7:09:28 AM PST by esarlls3 (Volunteer McCaul Supporter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: esarlls3
Banker? Lawyer? Lawyer? Banker? Hmmm tough choice.

One has real world experience about setting a budget and living by it. The other doesn't.

One has shown they can start a business from scratch and build into a successful multi-million dollar company. The other hasn't.

One has the independant wealth to be his own man in Washington, not beholden to the Bush/Rove/Perry machine. The other isn't.

It's nice to say McCaul disagrees with Bush on immigration but what happens when the bill goes through the House and the GOP machinery browbeats him to go along with it? What happens when they say "Look, Mike, who got you elected to this job? Who fronted you the money and lined up the endorsements for you? If you want our help next time, you'll vote as we say you will." And, like any lawyer, he'll take the position of his client, namely the Bush team.

Streusand may not be perfect but at least I know the votes he'll cast will be most likely what he believes in, not what he's told to vote. Subtle difference there, but one I think is very important for advancing conservatism.


50 posted on 04/01/2004 9:10:12 AM PST by Tall_Texan (The War on Terror is mere collateral damage to the Democrats' War on Bush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-115 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