Posted on 03/24/2004 11:11:02 AM PST by SwinneySwitch
LOL! Are any of them recorded by Rick Perry? I believe he used to be our governor but as of the last primary I'm pretty sure he has moved into the telemarketing business.
The issue isn't "too many" endorsements, it's from whom. Clearly, the Bush/Rove/Perry wing of the party recruited McCaul and backed him with their machine, hence the wide array of endorsements. Now if you see those as standard-bearers for what you think a GOP candidate should be, you should be voting for McCaul.
If you think your standard-bearers should be more conservative than that and independant from the Bush/Rove machine, you should be voting for Streusand.
In part, I'm sending a message that Bush/Rove should not run away from true conservatives who aren't their RINO annointeds, as they did to Schundler and Simon. They chose to back the "electable" RINO and then left in a snit when the RINO couldn't win the GOP primary. (In California, after losing to Simon, Bush/Rove recruited pro-abortion, pro-gay Arnold and annointed him rather than the conservative McClintock.)
In the CD 10 race, there are no Democrats to be concerned with. We can just vote the true conservative. That's what I plan to do.
I've heard it verified by two independent witnesses at the same CD 10 forum, one of whom posted it here and the other I spoke to. It is highly probable that a tape exists of it as well if you desire to hear it. Seeing as it was an apparent slip, I am certain he has since taken care to ensure it does not happen again at other forums. Nor could we expect him to use it in campaign literature, since it would obviously solicit negative feedback.
It's independently verified factual testimony. Two people who were there and who are not to my knowledge affiliated with each other heard it and can testify to hearing it. Since it was a public forum and since there does not seem to be any solid reason to doubt either, much less the fact that they independently corroborate each other, that's good enough for me.
and inspite of every statement McCaul has made regarding immigration.
His published campaign material on immigration, like any published campaign material by any candidate, is carefully screened before release by consultants, managers, or media handlers. It should therefore be of little surprise that the term is not used in any of them. At the debate though McCaul was speaking from the stump. That is not screened and it is not edited for terminology purposes. If he makes a freudian slip there it is open for all to see and very little can be done to retract it.
At any rate, it doesn't meet any standard of political debate.
Sure it does. He said it in public, multiple people witnessed him saying it in public including two who I have corroborated it with, and most likely a tape exists of him saying it in public. When a candidate slips up in public and says something on the stump that seems to conflict with his published, screened, and prepared campaign statements it is absolutely within the standards of political debate.
Ironically, a higher turnout in Harris County would have helped John Devine, who probably shot himself in the foot by running such a negative campaign.
Everyone says they hate negative campaigning when polled on it, but the paradox is that they also listen to it, meaning it works. It may be a sad reflection on our society but that is a simple fact. Devine's negative campaign hurt him not in the fact that it was simply negative but rather because he tried to hide the fact that he was firing the shots and he got caught. Sometimes candidates get caught at this. Sometimes they don't. In Devine's case he did because (a) his reputation preceded him among Harris County voters and (b) he was sloppy about it.
And yes, Streusand is using those same attacks from Devine against McCaul, though McCaul's team has done more than its part in returning the favor by using Devine attacks on Streusand. But as I've been saying all along, that both are doing so only shows them to be hypocrites. McCaul and Streusand have both opted to turn this thing into a "republican purity" battle, the problem being that neither has pure credentials in that area. So once again, the silly "but teacher, he started it!" excuse when used by either has no merit or bearing upon this race.
A closer look at his political activities outside of the realm of carefully prepared and edited speeches indicates a more complex picture. As reported from an 1861 conversation at the white house with at least three corroborating witnesses, Lincoln's real concern was not the vague notion of "preserving the union" but rather, as he put it, "[if I don't act] what will become of my tariff?" This line, or minor variations upon it, was heard and publicly reported by multiple witnesses almost immediately after it was said and, considering its consistency with other known private conversations in which he assured his political advisors that he would "take care of" Pennsylvania's tariff concerns upon which he won that state, is probably more representative of his true position than anything he said in public.
Same goes with Fort Sumter, which was publicly said to be a peaceful resupply mission only to "hold the fort." The private conversations, private letters, and dispatch orders all demonstrate that the Fort Sumter relief mission Lincoln dispatched had the overt intention of provoking a battle in which heavily armed warships would be able to enter Charleston harbor. Private records of his cabinet meeting even show several of the secretaries pointing out to Lincoln that it would assuredly mean full fledged war. So once again, what was publicly said is substantially different from what was privately believed and acted upon.
That did not stop a few freudian slips from coming out though. Speaking from the stump on his hotel balcony to an audience in Pittsburgh that February, Lincoln let his tariff priorities be known. Pittsburgh was part of the iron tariff constituency so he probably felt that he was among friends where he could speak openly on the issue. But everywhere else the message was the vague, unexplained, and wholly meaningless phrase of "preserve the union" (a phrase which Tocqueville, I might add, explicitly warned would be used at some future point by politicians who seek to better their financial interests by holding the other states hostage yet cannot publicly admit to something that nefarious without political consequences). Put another way, it's dangerous to take a politician's words at face value and in this race very little exists to merit our trust for either of them. McCaul, as I noted, has already let it slip that his immigration views probably aren't as conservative as his polished statements indicate. Streusand has not had a similar slip yet to my knowledge, though the only thing covering him right now is a very unstable and shallow benefit of the doubt.
So, in your opinion, what other wings of the party are there and who represents them?
What you're basically saying is that Texans only elect "the Bush/Rove/Perry wing of the party" so any endorsment by an elected official is unacceptable to you. While I agree that I would prefer more Conservative Republicans, we have to do the best we can with what is electable.
I don't think McCaul was "recruited and backed" by any "machine". I think he decided to run and asked his old bosses for their endorsement. They had been impressed with his work for them, so they endorsed him. In fact, while he started campaigning in October and opened offices in early January when the Justice Department approved the district map, his first "Bush/Rove/Perry" endorsement did not come from Cornyn until mid-February, just 3 weeks before the Primary. Every few days another Republican leader signs on to endorse McCaul. For most of them, this is the first Primary race they have endorsed in.
Here are today's latest additions endorsing McCaul:
Here is the entire list: http://www.mccaulforcongress.com/endorsements.php
I forwarded the question about Tancredo's Immigration Caucus to McCaul earlier today and will post the response when I receive it.
Nothing of the sort. Rove is George W.'s political tactics guru. And Perry was the hand-picked Lt. Gov. who ascended to Governor when Dubya gains the presidency. Cornyn, part of the same slate, gets pushed up to Senator when Gramm resigns. You don't notice the common roots here?
If any McCaul endorsement carried weight with me, it would be Gramm's but, in listening to his commercial on behalf of McCaul he doesn't tell me anything about McCaul that you couldn't also say about Streusand if elected. Streusand, too, will vote to defend the military, stop terrorism, keep the second amendment strong, etc. There's practically no difference in their stated positions.
I still question why Gramm retired when the Republicans were in the Senate majority after all those years of being in the minority. Wouldn't he prefer to stick around and do the work he wanted to get done now that he theoretically has a majority of like-minded senators? Maybe deep down he knew he couldn't be himself and be consistent with the Bush juggernaut.
While I agree that I would prefer more Conservative Republicans, we have to do the best we can with what is electable.
There's that electable word again. Why does that matter? No Democrat is running. No Libertarian is running. No Green Party is running. It's just GOP vs GOP. So which adjective would your candidate rather have? Conservative or Electable? Sounds like you've chosen electable. What I want is conservative.
BTW, when I call McCaul a "pretty boy", that's my psuedonym for "electable". It means handsome and harmless-looking enough to attract moderates and Democrats. That's what they said about Dubya. That's what they said about Perry. And what we got were photogenic moderates who just pose as conservative enough to win in the primary and then returns to being a moderate. I don't honestly know if McCaul is that sort but I've been burned too often by the machine to trust the annointed Rove candidate when a better alternative exists.
I don't know how Streusand will actually be if/when he's elected either but I know he won't owe his victory in any way shape or form to Karl Rove and that makes me believe he might actually *vote* conservative when elected and not just as a new tone Bush Republican.
I've been to two where both candidates were there. I took notes. I saw with my eyes and heard with my ears. I posted the info here, this thread, post 6. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1104533/posts?page=6#6
Streusand's people video taped it too. Wanna see it?
a post by a Streusand/Deevine supporter.
Not. Never supported Devine.
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.