McGuinness responds to Strama's negative ad

The McGuinness campaign released the following press release concerning Mark Strama's negative ad that attacked Patrick McGuinness over some Travis Monitor blog comments:

Strama's desperate attack ad puts politics before Texas

AUSTIN, TX – Patrick McGuinness, Republican candidate for State Representative in House District 50, has responded to a recent advertisement by his opponent. His response follows.

I have focused my campaign on the key issues facing this district and Texas: how we create jobs and build our prosperity. I have been advocating fiscally responsible, pro-taxpayer policies, and excellence in education to build our current and future prosperity.

Rather than debate these issues or run on his record, my opponent Mark Strama has engaged in a desperate and deceptive attack that distorts my positions and statements. This 11th hour partisan attack from a career politician is all spin and no substance:

- He distorts my support for continued democratic oversight of curriculum and textbooks via an elected State Board of Education
- He takes blog comments, including satirical ones, out-of-context to distort my views

I have been critical of politicians who say one thing and do another, and it's my pledge to never be a 'say one thing, do another' politician. Apparently, I am running against such a politician.

Strama's partisan actions do not match his rhetoric. He fails to acknowledge his role in the partisan filibuster conducted by Texas House Democrats in the 2009 session, which killed hundreds of bills in order to stop voter identification legislation. I have pledged to never be as partisan as Texas House Democrats have been recently - I will not engage in partisan filibusters or leave the state to stop legislative progress. As a high-tech professional with a career in semiconductors, I'll bring a problem-solving approach to the challenges that face Texas, and I will work together with all sides to do what's best for Texas.

While I stand on my conservative principles, Strama will not own up to his liberal voting record, his support for Obama and his agenda of expanded government. Considered a "liberal Democrat" in a study released by Rice University, Strama got a failed rating from Texans for Fiscal Responsibility and was rated one of the most liberal legislators in the 2009 session by Young Conservatives of Texas. Mark Strama has spent this campaign hiding from his record as a legislator - his opposition to voter identification laws, his support for higher gas taxes, and his proposed legislation to force Texas electric consumers to buy expensive forms of energy. He is running away from the president he endorsed and the signature "Obamacare" healthcare bill that will impose $27 billion in costs to Texas state budget over 10 years.

Liberal Democrat Mark Strama shouldn't pretend to be one thing on the campaign trail while voting another way in the legislature. Nor should he pretend to be above politics while reaching low to engage in the worst forms of it.

Patrick McGuinness is a longtime Austin resident, an engineer at Freescale with a doctorate in Computer Science, a husband to his wife Celeste, a father of four, and the Republican nominee for State Representative District 50. He can be reached at pat@patmcguinness.org.

UPDATE: Additional response to the specifics of Strama's claims can be found in this article: What 'Freedoms Truth' really said.

Strama Takes the Road Most Traveled

I had the unusual experience this past Saturday and Sunday of hanging out with family members of Mark Strama and, for a while, with the man himself. No, it was not a social call. Rather, it was a campaign call—for my part, a campaign for Strama’s opponent, my candidate for HD 50, Patrick McGuinness. You see, the Stramas (Mark, father Tom, wife Crystal Cotti, and cousin Julie) were occupying the same area under and around a big tree outside the early voting location at Randalls on Braker Lane near Jollyville Rd where I also was hanging out (Tom was there first).

A funny thing happened on the way to the 100-ft line. As I walked toward that point beyond which electioneering is illegal I saw a familiar looking blond girl pushing a grocery cart toward her car and Tom Strama reaching out to her with a pushcard in his hand asking her to vote for his son. When the girl saw my Patrick McGuinness T-shirt she said, “I am your opponent” to both of us. She was Emily Cowan, the Libertarian candidate for HD 50. To jog her memory I mentioned that I was the guy at the PfCONA Candidate Forum who had asked about her position on the legalization of marijuana as is being considered in California. She said “there was not a person [at the Forum] under 30.” Interesting response.

I conversed with Tom in between sightings of approaching “customers” and found him pleasant and very dedicated to keeping his son in office. He was quite competitive (my 11 year old son, Zacahry said “aggressive”) in getting to the potential voters first to ask them to vote for his son and to point out his son’s endorsement by the Austin American Statesman newspaper. I would follow-up, when I could, by handing them a McGuinness tri-fold brochure and telling them that Patrick was the conservative/Republican running against Mark. Tom and I got some odd looks at the juxtaposition of our competing candidates. A while later I finally read the push card and realized why Tom was pushing the AAS endorsement so hard (more about that down below).

Soon Mark’s cousin, Julie arrived to help Tom, and then his wife Crystal and finally Mark, himself. I talked to each of them about various things, including my concern about the TLR’s endorsement of Mark and the connection with Uncle T. At one point I had the opportunity to mention to Julie and Crystal the problem I have with Mark’s support of Planned Parenthood and about Planned Parenthood’s racist origins. I got the usual response about how awful abortion is but how much people (especially the poor and minorities) needed to have access to contraceptives and be educated on the proper use of the same. That is the part of Planned Parenthood they said Mark (and they) support. I told them about the documentary, Maafa 21 but I don’t think they wanted to hear that side of the story (i.e. the truth).

At some point I asked for one of Strama’s push cards and after reading it I realized that he and his relatives were taking full advantage of his endorsement by the Austin American Statesman, which he quoted from on his card to attack his opponent. Here is the full AAS statement on the HD 50 race and their endorsement of Strama with the part Strama had on his push card shown in red:

Another hotly contested race pits Republican challenger Patrick McGuinness against two-term incumbent Mark Strama in District 50. We liked McGuinness in the Republican primary, but Strama, 43, offers the best package of experience and skill to represent the North Travis County middle- and lower-income district that needs a strong representative.

Strama is a moderate Democrat who attracts crossover support, whereas McGuinness is more hard-core partisan. As in the Bolton-Workman race, [E]xperience and knowing how to use it makes Strama the best choice in this race.

He championed green energy job creation and other energy-related bills. We've expected a lot from Strama since he was first elected in 2003. So far, he's delivered.

Notice the parts left out. On the one hand, left out is one of the strongest statements about Strama perceived value as a candidate as measured by AAS. On the other hand, Strama did not draw any attention to the only part of his legislative agenda mentioned, the greening of the energy sector. Could it be because Patrick has been effective at hammering him on it? What is left is relevant to Strama’s purpose here. He is trying to paint McGuinness as a partisan extremist (which to a moderate politician is anathema, in spite of the fact that the political pendulum swings widely and is now swinging right). The pushcard listed five phrases taken from Patrick McGuinness’ Travis Monitor blog post (under the pseudonym Freedom’s Truth) between January 5, 2007 and December 13, 2009 that Strama hoped would paint Patrick as an extreme partisan. Click here to read Patrick's explanation of his "extreme" words.

It was a calculated and perhaps desperate shot. But what happened next showed even more calculation by Strama’s team. By this time both Mark Strama and Patrick were present, though Patrick was not in the close proximity to the Stramas that I was. I walked over to Patrick and handed him the push card and asked him to read it. I’m pretty sure it was the first time he had read it. Later he approached Mark and began to ask him about the quotes and not remembering every thing he ever wrote he naturally wondered if they were really his words. Mark then asked him if he was Freedom’s Truth. Patrick hesitated in response and then said that he was Freedom’s Truth but not everything posted under Freedom’s Truth is something he wrote. Mark got visibly angry and accused Patrick of not owning up to his written words. It seemed to me that this was exactly what Strama was trying to do, to catch Patrick in a seemingly evading stance. But, it was a set-up. The next day Tom, who was not there when Mark and Patrick butted heads, mentioned that he heard that Patrick was not willing to admit that the words on the card were his. When I asked Tom if Mark had told him about the incident, he said no, the campaign manager had. They perhaps created and certainly planned to use the incident against Patrick. Within 24 hrs Strama had aired a negative ad against Patrick.

Strama told me that there was one particularly extreme quote that his team had found which he was hoping to attribute to Patrick. But, the quote “There’s a special place in Hell for AARP” was from a blogger with the alias Freedom Ain’t Free. Yes, that would be me. The actual quote was even more “extreme”, as I called out actual persons and not just an organization. Here it is: “There is a special place in Hell for people like those who run the AARP” which I wrote in an email to the AARP last year during the healthcare debate in Congress. Strama told me that he understood why I had written those words in the context of the healthcare/Obamacare debate on Capitol Hill. He no doubt similarly understood the quotes from Patrick’s posts, in their contexts, but he still used them to paint his opponent in a negative light, as an extremist. It was a desperate ploy, perhaps a distraction from Strama’s extreme legislative record and association with the most left of center President that has ever occupied the White House.

I have been working to replace Mark Strama with someone who represents my values, and I believe the values of HD 50, ever since he defeated Jack Stick in 1994. This is my third attempt. This time we have a favorable political environment and a candidate, in Patrick McGuinness, who can do it. I think that Mark Strama knows this and so like almost always happens with entrenched incumbents who feel threatened, he's gone negative, the road most traveled. I for one am delighted.

What "Freedom's Truth" Really Said

In 2007, I helped set up a community blog, Travis Monitor, with the purpose to share the Republican and conservative perspective on events in Austin, Travis county, Texas and the nation. This blog has had several authors, and, as with many blogs and with the authors of the Federalist papers, a 'nom de plume' is used by most of us. I've gone under "Freedom's Truth".

I am Patrick McGuinness, an engineer at Freescale, a father of four, and Republican candidate for State Representative. On this blog, I've written on education, learning, energy, the economy, outsourcing, net neutrality, patriotism, political parties, Keynes and other topics. Even some quotes by George Washington, in particular one that is apropos:
“Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light.” – George Washington

By digging around in the blog for a few snippets and twisting them out of context, my opponent has used some blog comments in a campaign ad that misleads voters about where I really stand. It's 'gotcha' negative politics.

For example, in reaction to Rep Alan Grayson, a Democratic Congressman who claimed the Republican health care plan was for people to 'die quickly', I had a response to that outrage that lamented, "4 million jobs lost and all the Democrats can do is piddle around with smears and lies about Republicans. Have they at long last no shame..." I said Rep Grayson deserved to be fired (voters will agree with me and do so next Tuesday), after calling him and his fellow Democrats "liars" and "unfit to govern". That latter phrase made it into a 30-second spot.

My sharp words for the Democrats in Congress under Nancy Pelosi have been taken out of context to imply a harsh view of all Democrats, but in fact it is the partisan left-leaning ideological approach of this Congress that I've lamented. In this campaign, I've heard many with even harsher judgement for this failed (and soon to be fired) Democratic Congress. I have been friendly and agreeable with some Democrats (not in Congress), even voted 1 or 2 in recent years, but it's the failures of Democratic politicians at the national level that has motivated me to run for office. We cannot afford the direction the liberal Democrats are taking the country, and I count my opponent, Democrat Mark Strama, endorser of Obama, among them for supporting many of the same flawed policies.

My opponent is painting a false picture of where I stand on the basis of a few snippets, but the internet has the best memory and you can be the judge of where I really stand and what I really said. I have put links below of the items he went to. Yet there are other posts more relevant to what I am about. Should I become State Representative, I earnestly will work with others for the betterment of Texas, and heated words - whether in 30-second ads or on blogs - will not be what counts. Our actions always speak louder than our words.

1) http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2009/05/statesman-celebrates-stupidity-in-texas.html
I substituted "stupidity" for "moderation" to satirize the Austin-American Statesman for overusing the word 'moderate' and for lauding the 'moderate' trend in the statehouse in a news article. My opponent has taken a satirical rewrite of a Statesman article and treated a snippet as a serious viewpoint.

2) http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2009/04/blue-dogs.html

Politicians in Congress who claimed to be 'blue dog Democrats' but supported Speaker Pelosi and the liberal agenda of the Democratic leadership were described as 'unprincipled hypocritical liars'. This statement was directed at politicians in Congress who claimed to be one thing but do another, and was falsely attributed by my opponent to represent my view of all Democrats.

3) http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2009/06/gores-pseudo-science-now-unsafe-in.html

The phrase "Globaloney Warming Nonsense" was directed at Al Gore and his documentary, which was "riddled with falsehoods" as pointed out by many critics of Gore's film. My opponent incorrectly associates it with a view of overall global warming, but in fact, the key point is that Gore's work does not accurately reflect where the science is on global warming, as the links attest to.

4) http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2007/01/friday-night-forums.html

I discussed why Pitts' candidacy against Speaker Craddick was a problem. For the state House to operate properly when there is a Republican majority, the Speaker should be supported by the majority of the Republican caucus. This was twisted by Strama into an endorsement of 'Craddick's divisive leadership' but is actually an endorsement of a House leadership that reflects the will of the majority in the House. Such leadership will be more stable than a leadership that is distrusted by most members of the majority party in the House.

5) Claim - "Renewable energy does nothing" http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2009/12/renewable-energy-does-nothing.html

The phrase "Renewable energy does nothing" is the headline of a post that cites a critical
report from Germany on renewable energy incentives, which stated that:
"Renewable energies are thus among the most expensive GHG reduction measures. ...
There are much cheaper ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions than subsidizing renewable energies. ...
In fact, since the establishment of the ETS in 2005, the EEG’s net climate effect has been equal to zero."

The headline summarized the conclusions of a German report, and Strama should study this German report to understand how his own energy proposals might not work.

6) In the May 20, 2009 post, I stated that there were some bad ideas in the session including "higher spending in many areas like SCHIP".
My opponently distorted this to claim that I said the CHIP program as a whole was a 'bad idea'. That does not reflect my view, and I never said it.
Given our looming budget shortfall that has been made larger by increased spending in the prior legislative cycle, my skepticism of increased spending "in many areas" was warranted. This is the quote in context:

"In the bad idea category: Draconian McCain-Feingold style dictation of political activist groups; a higher gas tax; a nanny-state smoking ban; higher spending in many areas like SCHIP; nothing on illegal immigration, including failing to even report on costs of it; diverting textbook funding and removing SBOE authority and accountability via elections; shutting down sovereignty claims."

UPDATE - 10/26: I have updated the above commentary with corrections and additional links. We should not forget that, while my opponent has hit me for a few partisan blog comments, the most partisan act of the past Texas House session was the Democrats' filibuster of the voter identification bill. I should add that I predicted KBH would stay in the U.S. Senate, and I predicted a Republican rebound 18 months ago, but added at the end "Republicans will have to earn it" which is what I hope to do.

- Patrick McGuinness aka Freedom's Truth

Debate?

Last night in Bastrop Lloyd Doggett showed up for a debate with Dr. Donna Campbell. We should have known it was a set-up from the beginning since Lloyd Doggett actually showed up. All the questions had to be pre-submitted and someone chose which questions to ask the candidates. I verified with Bastrop County Republicans that they HAD submitted questions for Lloyd Doggett to answer, but none of them were selected. All the questions were addressed to Donna Campbell who spoke first and then Lloyd Doggett got to speak and was allowed to go over allotted time. Jim Stutsman, the Libertarian in the race, was pushed away from the podium when he was 5 second over. Donna Campbell was not able to respond to any of the misrepresentations that Lloyd Doggett brought up. Donna did a great job and we really need to get a person in Congress representing us who is not afraid to show up for a fair and open debate.

TLR's Endorsement of Mark Strama and Black Genocide

Last Thursday afternoon I received four copies of the email message imaged herein from my "favorite" (tongue firmly planted in cheek) lobbying group.

You read it right. At this critical moment in the 2010 campaign season Texans for Lawsuit Reform's political action committee is broadcasting their endorsement of Mark “Obama” Strama (and I guess I'm helping them do so via this blog post). Of course, this is no surprise since Mark Strama’s uncle is the President of the organization and the chairman of its PAC. Uncle ‘T’ would not fail to endorse his favorite nephew legislator, Mark Strama to whom he has funneled double digit thousands of PAC money.

Texans for Lawsuit Reform (TLR) is a Republican-Democrat interloping single-issue lobbying group that, in Strama, is endorsing a candidate that has a history of voting the way they want him to, no doubt. But Strama also actively opposed the Voter ID bill and continues to be opposed to voter ID as I heard him state at the October 12th PfCONA Candidate Forum, voted against property tax relief twice (after he first voted for the unpopular business margins tax bill that had some property tax relief in it), wants to subsidize renewable energy and as a result drive up the cost of conventional energy sources (sounds like Obama’s war on coal fire plants), gave money to Obama in 2008 and even made Obama-Strama buttons as a fund raising gimmick in 2008. Basically, this "Rep" is a south paw when it comes to legislating and thus he is unfit for HD 50, which is not exactly a slam-dunk liberal district.

On top of all that, Strama is a pro-abort who supports Planned Parenthood and has sought to fund Planned Parenthood using our tax dollars. I have always known that Planned Parenthood was all about abortion rather than planning a family, in spite of its "family friendly" sounding name, but I did not realize how racist the organization really is until yesterday (10/16). That's when I joined Marilyn Jackson and Donna Campbell and others in East Austin for a screening of the documentary film, Maafa 21. I learned from the film that one out of every two black Americans are killed before they are ever born, a rate of mortality by abortion that dwarfs that of the much more more numerous white population. So I can say definitively, with a mountain of evidence (contained in the 138 minute documentary film) to back it up, that Mark Strama is participating in, and seeking to use tax dollars for, the genocide of black America through his support of Planned Parenthood.

Maafa 21 exposes Planned Parenthood’s genocidal past and present. See links to YouTube video’s about the film, below:

Maafa 21 Trailer

Congressman Trent Franks on Maafa 21

Maafa 21 Pt.4 (The Use of Force)

Maafa 21 Pt.13a of 14

I think I’ve gotten to know Mark Strama's challenger, Patrick McGuinness fairly well over the past several years. Does Patrick care about tort reform in terms of it keeping Texas “business friendly” and job creating? Sure he does, in spite of the purposely misleading introductory paragraph in the Strama endorsement email from Uncle ‘T’ (misleading the reader to assume that Patrick is opposed to law suit reform, which he is not). But, unlike Planned Parenthood supporter Mark Strama, Patrick is unabashedly pro-life and he opposes the racist black baby killing machine that is Planned Parenthood (a machine that also ends the lives of thousands of red, brown, yellow, and white babies every day). On top of that, Reagan Republican and limited government patriot that Patrick is, he is far better qualified to Represent HD 5o than is Uncle ‘T’s little lefty nephew and McGuinness will likely vote in favor of tort reform, anyway, as a matter of good public policy.

So when Patrick is sworn in early next year, TLR can still get what they want out of the HD 50 Representative, if indeed they really want lawsuit reform that is good for Texas.

Eat Our Dust

A Trenchant Tale Of Two States - IBD - Investors.com

Not being an expert in economics I don't have a strong analytical basis for my belief that low taxes and resonable regulation make for a strong economy, but the Investors Business Daily chart below taken from the story linked above show that Texas' lawmakers, Governor Perry, and other statewide leaders have been governing the right way while California's government leaders have just not understood the relationship between good tax and regulation policy and a strong economy.

It is because of Texas' success that I believe we should reelect Gov. Rick Perry and the rest of the statewide Republican leadership as well as elect conservatives challengers Mary Lou Serafine, Patrick McGuinness, Paul Workman, Dan Neil, Jason Isaac, Marilyn Jackson to replace the liberal Democrat incumbents they are challenging.

And about California. Though we do not want California with its high taxes and extreme regulation to drag the rest of the country down, we Texans are proud to have competed with our big sister on the left coast and we hope she will learn a lesson or two from her little experiment in liberalism and will return to her former glory one day. In the mean time Texans say to Californians, "Eat our dust."

Coalition On Sustainable Transportation (COST) recommends NO Vote on Austin "Mobility" Bond (Prop 1)

Austin media sometimes gives short shrift to opposing views to City Council bond initiatives, so here is a press release I received from the Coalition of Sustainable Transportation:

The Coalition on Sustainable Transportation (COST) joins a growing number of Austin organizations (like RECA - Real Estate Council of Austin, and TAG - Texans for Accountable Government) and civic leaders in opposing the Austin City Council’s proposed “Transportation” bond referendum (Proposition 1) to be placed on the November 2, 2010 election ballot.

“This proposed $90 million dollar bond package has been created with little transparency and lacks integrity. The package is a veiled hodgepodge of projects deceptively mislabeled ‘transportation and mobility’ improvements. The city has provided scant data regarding the costs and transportation benefits of any proposed project,” says COST Executive Director and well known transportation expert Jim Skaggs.


Austin citizens use roadways for 99% of their travel. Contrary to the City’s deceptive presentation, more than one-half of the bond money will be spent on projects which have no impact on roadway mobility and congestion, including the following defined projects:

1. The most expensive project in the package is a $14.4 million boardwalk on the south side of Lady Bird Lake.

2. The second most expensive is $10 million for American Disabilities Act sidewalk improvements.

3. The third most expensive is $8 million labeled as “Arterial Streets” but is primarily bike lanes and sidewalks for the 3rd street Lance Armstrong Bike Boulevard.

In addition, another $12.3 million is allocated to projects for sidewalks, trails and bike lanes making a total of $36.7 million.

More than one-third of the $90 million bond is a “blank check” for the city because specific projects are not identified.

The largest true roadway project involves $4 million in temporary improvements to the highly congested “Y” at Oak Hill. Undefined neighborhood streets are allocated $16.35 million of which $2.7m is for ‘traffic calming’ and ‘quiet zone’ funding – terms that are not well defined. Almost $20 million is allocated for street reconstruction which appears to be 'deferred/neglected maintenance' with little mobility improvement. An additional $2 million is to support Capital Metro's Bus Rapid Transit and Urban Rail which has not even been approved by voters. Clearly Cap Metro should fund this and zero should be spent anticipating Urban Rail.

The city’s selection criteria for bond package projects are decidedly ‘anti-automobile’ and ‘anti-mobility.’ They are biased against projects which should have the highest priority: Those which are cost effective in relieving the most road congestion and improving mobility for the greatest number of people.

Voters should vote NO on this poorly formulated bond proposition and require the city to present a cost-effective package with total transparency and mobility benefits data.

COST strongly recommends a different bond package be allocated based on effective projects to relieve road congestion for the most citizens, and deferred maintenance projects should be included in the city’s general fund.

For questions contact: Don Zimmerman, 512-577-8842 (don@donzimmerman.org)

ABOUT COST:
The mission of the Coalition on Sustainable Transportation (COST) is to promote sustainable, cost-effective people mobility solutions for the Austin region. COST’s purpose is to seek and provide objective, analytically based and understandable information which allows citizens, elected officials, other community leaders, and transportation officials to assess people mobility alternatives and select those which equitably serve the Austin region’s greater good.

www.costaustin.org

Voter Forum on Austin Mobility Bond is Oct. 5

Republican Club of Austin hosts voter forum on Austin Prop #1, (the Mobility Bond), Tuesday, Oct. 5th, at noon.

 Austin, TX – The Republican Club of Austin is hosting a forum on Proposition #1, the “Mobility Bond”. The time and location is:
11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
Green Pastures Restaurant
811 W. Live Oak Street, Austin, TX

Speaker FOR - Ted Siff (Treasurer for the GetAustinMoving PAC).
Speaker AGAINST - Ed Wendler (Austin developer)

Reference: http://www.cityofaustin.org/news/mobility_bond.htm
“Proposition 1

The issuance of $90,000,000 in tax supported general obligation bonds and notes for constructing and reconstructing roads and streets; constructing, improving and reconstructing sidewalks, bikeways, and other bicycle and pedestrian mobility infrastructure…”

For questions or more information, contact Don Zimmerman, 512-577-8842 (don@donzimmerman.org)

About RCA:
The Republican Club of Austin has been meeting since 1992, and meets on the first Tuesday of every month, and hosts a variety of speakers and forums on current events, from local to state and national level.

Shotgunning With Perry; Tracking White

I had the good fortune to be invited to an event featuring Texas Governor Rick Perry on Friday, at a private sporting clays competition with other bloggers from around the state and nation. The bloggers are here in Austin for a RedState.com blogging event and the organizers took us out to the Cypress Preserve in northwest Austin, through tie-ins to the Perry campaign. A few observations:

• The event was fun. Anytime you get a chance to shoot guns at a target or skeet range you're going to have a good time. I've shot skeet and hunted doves before but never shot at sporting clays, an activity which simulates hunting conditions for various types of bird and game as you might encounter them in the wild. I'd never shot at teal rising straight up in the air before but what a challenge and what fun it was to hit the two targets in the same set! At another station, for dove I think, I went 5-8, with two consecutive sets of double hits on two clays thrown at the same time, coming at the shooter from the same direction. But hey, enough about me!
• Despite the fairly limited access we had to the Governor -- he seemed to be more interested in hustling between groups and getting some shots in at each station than fielding policy questions -- a few bloggers got into policy and campaign stuff with him. But really, who can blame the Governor for not seeming too interested in doing his political duties? Indeed, I was more interested in shooting clays than talking with the Governor anyway. With all due respect, Mr. Governor...
• Rick Perry was shooting what looked like Browning Mossy Oak Duck Blind semi-auto. (Now that would have been a good question for me to ask "What gun are you shooting, Mr. Governor?" and one he might not have ducked! Punny aren't I?)
• The Governor has a very comfortable shooting stance. He moved into shooter mode very easily and quickly and I could tell he was really enjoying his time away from the office. There's no doubt he's a natural shooter, one who has been using guns a long time. In some of his pre-event comments he exuded great confidence in his abilities, saying something like none of us could outshoot him. I believed him, like I believe the golf course hustler who plays all the time for a few bucks here and there. It would have been tempting to take on the Governor in a challenge, but I figured I would have been outgunned. I was right, but if he'd spotted me a few clays, I would have taken up the bet anyway.
• I asked Will Franklin, a media aide for the governor's campaign staff, to poll the bloggers on the bus about their shooting experience. I estimate there were about 50 people on the bus and about 20 said they'd used shotguns before while the other 30 indicated they had never done so. What a shame! I mean really, it's quite sad that adult Americans had never had the chance or the self-initiated gumption to go out and shoot before being invited on press-blogger junket! I think all journalists and bloggers should be required to take a shooting class to understand the 2nd Amendment in the way they take classes to understand the 1st Amendment. As an aside, just think what that percentage of previous shooters to non-shooters it would have been if the bus contained a bunch of left-wing bloggers. Of course they would never be on a bus returning from a sporting clays shooting event in the first place. It's sad that people are so sheltered and so comfortable in their lack of experience with guns. It's even more sad that they are always so intent and determined to dismantle a Constitutional right enjoyed by so many of their fellow Americans.
• The inimitable Anna Z and I were talking about how fun shooting is and how addicting it can be. The personal challenge of controlling the weapon so that you can hit your target is no small feat. Hold the gun correctly, line up the sights, breathe correctly, squeeze correctly all have to be performed in relaxed but focused mental state over the course of seconds. The results are easily seen. If you did it right -- hit. Wrong - miss. There's no "Jobs created or saved" attempts to rationalize poor results, of the type that liberals routinely engage. "Gun control" to a conservative means the ability to hit your target with as little wasted lead spent as possible.
• Of course Anna Z probably has some good policy/political questions for the Governor, so you ought to check her site to see some more professional coverage of the event ;-) My teammate Sibyl West at Ramparts360.com will probably do so as well.

Which brings me to Bill White, the Democrat opponent to Rick Perry for Governor.

I'd like to ask Mr. White some questions about his previous engagement with a group called "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" and his likely alignment with their political objectives in Texas.

Last July, Democratic Senate Candidate John Sharp called on White to quit this liberal group, founded by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. White is no longer listed as a member as seen here. He was however, as can be seen on this advertisement found at the "MAIG group's web site. (Note to MAIG web tenders - I downloaded the ad PDF so there's no reason for you to remove the link to the Memory Hole.)

The questions then, to both candidates, but especially to Mr. White, would be something like this:

• If elected Governor of Texas, would you adopt the policy prescriptions that MAIG suggests for reducing the flow of weapons to Mexico, including the types now found in California for requiring background checks for all handgun sales at gun shows, requiring purchase permits in advance of handgun sales, allowing local jurisdictions to regulate firearms, and allowing inspection of gun dealers?
• Wouldn't you be concerned that those restrictions would pose undue hinderances on Americans to exercise their rights to bear arms as recently validated by the U.S. Supreme Court?
• Are you more interested in restricting the rights of Americans to buy and sell guns than apprehending illegal aliens who are engaged in securing those guns for transfer to Mexico?
• In a Texas led by Bill White, how much Constitutional liberty should Texans be willing to sacrifice in order for you to help Mexico with its military's fight against drug and illegal immigrant traffickers? Would you put the same emphasis on reducing the amount of drug use by Texans, the already illegal activity that supplies the narco-traffickers with their sources of revenue for purchasing and transporting weapons?

Of course I'd like Governor Perry to answer the same questions. I'd like to think he would live up to his conservative credos and defend Texans' rights to bear arms without undue government meddling, especially in the surreptitious name of helping Mexico with its problems.

Big thanks to the Perry team for having me along!

Mark Strama's Uncle T - How the Elected Class Stays in Power

Just for the record, I am pro tort reform and very thankful that Texas leads the Nation in the important area of tort reform. I do, however take issue with the methods of single issue focused Texans for Lawsuit Reform (TLR) PAC which perpetuates bad incumbent lawmakers on the sole basis that they support TLR’s legislative agenda. In other words, groups like TLR perpetuate the problem that the TEA Party movement has recently--and Republican Assemblies have for many years--risen up to remedy.

I’m happy that Dan Neil and Paul Workman are getting matching funds from Conservative Republicans of Texas. However, it is my understanding that TLR has threatened to match dollar for dollar, in contributions to Patrick Rose and Mark Strama, any contributions to Jason Isaac and Patrick McGuinness, respectively from Conservative Republicans of Texas (CRT) and other PACs, hence no such matching funds to Patrick or Jason from CRT.

I’ve exposed Rose’s connections to powerful interests previously. But since I looked it up I might as well mention that TLR has funneled contributions to Patrick Rose to the tune of $18,493.30 (including in-kind contributions to The Committee To Elect Patrick Rose) since October 2009, $10,000 of which has been contributed since May 2010.

Now, turning my attention to Mark Strama.

Note firstly that Richard Trabulsi, Jr. is president of Texans for Lawsuit Reform and chairman of its political action committee (TLR PAC). In that capacity he has funneled “other people’s money” to both Patrick Rose and Mark Strama for their support of TLR’s agenda, even though on most all other issues they are in lock step with liberal Democrats seeing as how they are liberal Democrats, very liberal.

In the case of Thomas Mark “Obama” Strama, Mr. Trabulsi is his uncle. It must be nice to have an uncle who can funnel other peoples money ($15,000 since November 2009, $10,000 of which has been contributed since May 2010) to your campaign in exchange for a few token votes for TLR on its issues.

Also, I note that Mark Strama’s brother (and thus also Trabulsi’s nephew), Keith Strama is a lobbyist and just look who one of his clients is:

Texans for Lawsuit Reform
919 Congress Avenue, Suite #455, Austin, TX 78701
Type of Compensation: Prospective
$25,000 - $49,999.99
Client Start Date: 01/12/2010
Client Term Date: 12/31/2010

Now if that doesn’t smack of...

As for Strama’s Obama loving credentials, note the excerpt below about the split between Aunt Judy Trabulsi (Richard Trabulsi’s sister) and Nephew Mark (especially the red letter text):

....
Trabulsi, who noted she made her first political contribution — $30 — to Bill Clinton's race for Arkansas attorney general in 1976, has since given more than $18,000 to Hillary Clinton's campaigns since 1999, including $4,200 for her current presidential bid.
....
Generational split
Not everyone is convinced that Hillary Clinton's longtime ties in the state will tip the election in her favor.

Matt Glazer, the editor of the Burnt Orange Report, a liberal blog based in Austin that endorsed Obama, said the question is whether traditional Democratic organization will prevail or whether the primary will be decided by the first-time voters who are drawn to the Illinois senator.

"Is it the new young hip or the usual thing?" said Glazer, a native of Spring. He noted that one of the contributors to his blog is David Mauro, Garry Mauro's son.

One sign of generational differences is that Trabulsi's nephew Mark Strama, a 40-year-old state legislator from Austin, has endorsed Obama.

"Obviously, it was a hard conversation when I told my aunt a year ago I was going to support Obama," said Strama, noting his aunt was "horrified."

"For people in my generation, who didn't get to experience the JFK and RFK candidacies, this is our first chance we have had to be inspired," Strama said.

Source: Clinton's not alone in the Lone Star State: Despite 36-year network, a victory isn't guaranteed

Politics as usual must stop. November is coming! May the conservatives smash their opposition on election day.

(The source of all the PAC contributions and lobbyist information given above is the Texas Ethics Commission website.)

Dope Smokers and Sanctuary City Supporters Put More Blood on Their Hands

The news that 72 people were murdered in Mexico should sadden everyone, especially those who smoke dope, do drugs and support "undocumented aliens" in America.

 They are the ones providing the incentives for migrants to come to America and forcing them to risk getting involved with the thugs and villains in the drug gangs and the human trafficking rings. And the dope smokers are empowering the drug gangs with money and the means to organize, buy guns and evade authorities.

Count these poor souls on your conscience, along with those folks who suffocated in that truck in Victoria a few years back.

Go ahead and smoke those Blood Tokes. Maybe you'll anesthetize yourself to the death and suffering you cause, even to your own soul.

Americans for Prosperity Respond to Attack from President Bully Obama

American Presidents of the past have reserved their most pointed and damning rhethorical attacks for the true enemies of America.

By contrast, President Barack Obama coddles those enemies and conveys his animosity toward his domestic political opponents. It's sad, destabilizing and dangerous for the President of the United States to continue his attacks on American citizens he may disagree with while kowtowing to non-citizens who want to kill American citizens.

In the spirit of ensuring that Travis Monitor readers see the full response of a group that was attacked by President Obama while he was here in Travis County a few weeks back, here is the full Americans For Prosperity press release release commenting on this travesty:

AFP – TEXAS ADVISORY BOARD CHAIRMAN ADDRESSES RECENT ATTACKS ON AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY

Ben Streusand, Texas Advisory Board Chairman for Americans for Prosperity (AFP), responds to President Obama’s comments criticizing AFP’s grassroots origins and its funding:

“President Obama’s comments at a Democratic party fundraiser August 9th, in Austin were decidedly unpresidential and showed a disturbing contempt for citizens who simply have a different vision for our country than that of the President.

“AFP’s legal, ethical, and honorable activities, such as demonstrations against Obamacare, opposition to the American Recovery Act (stimulus), and sponsorship of the statewide event held in Austin, the Defending the American Dream® Summit on July 4th, have helped educate people on these issues and contributed to a vital discourse on these critical issues. This kind of debate and expression is a crucial part of the functioning of a free society and a strong democracy.

“The President’s attack, as well as a recent article in THE NEW YORKER, by Jane Mayer, is a barely-veiled attempt to discredit our group and our members, who are simply exercising their right to disagree with the policies coming out of this administration.

“Our decisions to engage in public policy debates are governed by our primary mission, which is to advocate in support of free market policies and solutions. One must ask whether it is really the role of the President of the United States to attempt to chill free speech, simply because that speech happens to disagree with his own views.
“Our national membership consists of 1.2 million members, of which 74,000 reside in the state of Texas. To imagine that any corporation could control our agenda is ludicrous. They only positive aspect of this unfortunate incident is that we must be having some impact on the administrations policies to warrant the President’s attempt to discredit us.”

AN END-ZONE DANCE ON AMERICANS’ GRAVES

By Bob Ward

Faisel Rauf, a Muslim imam, wants to build a combination mosque and Muslim community center on a site in what would be in the shadow of the World Trade Center had the twin towers not been destroyed by Islamic terrorists. He has the support of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and other assorted liberals dazzled by talk of tolerance, cross-cultural understanding and other liberal fantasies.

But cutting thorough all the liberal boiler plates it is clear that this proposed mosque is nothing but a 13-story, multimillion dollar gloat and a naked attempt to promote Islam where Muslims had shed infidel blood. On Sept. 11, 2001, the Jihadists scored a major hit against the U.S. In a single stroke they murdered close to 3,000 of us and now they want to perform an end-zone dance to rub our noses in it.

The imam made his take on Sept. 11 clear when he said on “60 Minutes” just a few weeks later, "I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened but United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened." So he “wouldn’t say” that America’s chickens came home to roost in the manner of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, but he came very close.

And now, the Obama administration, which never hesitates to accommodate Muslim interests at the expense of the U.S., is paying for this imam to travel to Saudi Arabia, presumably to raise the necessary funds to build the mosque.

In addition to being an insult to the thousands who died in the Sept. 11 attack and their families, building the mosque is one more not-so-small step in promoting the Muslim presence and influence in American life. This is in no way comparable to the other ethnic groups who came here, made America their home, adopted our way of life and became Americans. Muslims, like Faisel Rauf, want us to adopt their way of life and Shariah law – which is contrary to nearly every Constitutional principle. That is part of the mosque package, part of what the Sept. 11 Jihadists were seeking to bring about through their Jihad.

This would be an excellent and appropriate occasion for organized labor to demonstrate its clout and its patriotism by refusing to work on this affront to our nation and our values. The same goes for vendors of building equipment and supplies. The free market could still have the last word on the repugnant project.

Why Obama Spoke at UT

A comment on the Statesman blog nails it:

It sounds like the students are unaware that the only reason Obama spoke to them was so the taxpayers could pick up the bill for this fundraising trip. If he went to just the fund raisers then the Democrat Party would have to pay for the trip. But by speaking to the students the taxpayers will now be billed. Kind of depressing in a recession. Hope the students enjoyed the show.

Obamas Have No Empathy for the American People

Today's headlines spell out the likely ultimate doom of His and Her Majesty Barack and Michelle Obama as they demonstrate how out of sync they are with the plight of the American people:

Headline 1: U.S. Stocks Fall After Weaker-Than-Estimated Jobs Report
Key quote, at the bottom of the article of course:

“The recovery is so weak that it is not strong enough to generate new jobs for the new entrants in the labor force, let alone to find jobs for the 15 million Americans who would like a job and can’t get one,” Stiglitz told Bloomberg Television in an interview in Sydney yesterday.

Headline 2: First Lady Under Fire for Her Glitzy Spanish Vacation
Key Quote:

Yet the bigger public furor concerns the cost and appearance of the trip. In a scathing editorial published Thursday, New York Daily News writer Andrea Tantaros trashed Michelle Obama as a "modern day Marie Antoinette" for taking such a glitzy vacation while most of the country is struggling to make ends meet.The Obama entourage is staying at the luxury Hotel Villa Padierna, a Ritz-Carlton property often described as one of the world's top 10 hotels. Rates range between $500 and $2,500 a night. It's not clear that the Obama delegation picked this hotel specifically, or if the Secret Service — which often gets final say over where a protectee stays — made the accommodations call.

Headline 3: Jobs Picture Worsens With 131,000 Losses; 9.5% Rate
Key Quote:

U.S. employment fell for a second straight month in July as more temporary census jobs ended while private hiring rose less than expected, pointing to an anemic economic recovery.

Non-farm payrolls fell 131,000, the Labor Department said on Friday as temporary jobs to conduct the decennial census dropped by 143,000. Private employment, considered a better gauge of labor market health, rose 71,000 after increasing 31,000 in June.

And of course taxes will be going up for everyone next year, to continue paying for the Obama's extravagant lifestyle and continuing unemployment benefits for the unemployed. Instead of abandoning the demonstrably failed Keynesian approach to "stimulus" and setting the markets free, we the American people have to endure seeing our failed President and First Lady whoop it up. I guess they feel the need to do so while they still can.

Texas Reigns Without Keynesian Policies

The Atlantic.com Website offers a story here about the Texas economy and how it has weathered the financial storm of 2008 and even thrived. Low taxes, a legislative environment that is not hostile to business and a laissez-faire approach to development have all been hallmarks of the success. The author's final bullet point describes the atmosphere here:

4. Something About Texas
Maybe it's the lack of a state income or capital gains tax. Or the dearth of union workers. Or the plentiful labor supply on the border of Mexico, or the lower wages, or the stable and lean regulations. There's something about Texas that makes it the most popular place for business to do its business, as CEO Magazine and CNBC both found the last year. As Brooke Rollins, president of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, told me: "Our research shows that the more tax incentives and less regulation you have, and the less likely businesses are to get sued, the more likely it is they'll want to come and prosper in your state."

So those are the policy prescriptions other states need to revive their economies. You would think Texas would be receiving elected officials from other states, to see how it's done.

All of those characteristics of the Texas economy stand as 180-degree opposite prescriptions to the Keynesian and authoritarian prescriptions in vogue with the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress.

Texas is just doing what it has always done throughout its history -- let people be. That's what has attracted people who were imbued with the democratic spirit to Texas since the 1820's and even more so after Texas gained its independence from Mexico in 1836. Once, America was the last bastion of freedom in the world, where people flocked to opportunity. Now it seems to be only Texas.

Obama and Clinton Prepare for State Visit From China's Hu

Recently, the Obama Administration announced that it was freezing arm sales to Taiwan out of fears that those weapons, outdated though they might be, may end up in Communist Chinese hands. This concern reportedly stems from from the recent environment of cooperation between Beijing and the Ma Ying-jeou government in Taipei, cooperation that US State Department policy has actually encouraged. A recent private conversation between President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton that was somehow captured on video has been made public and it shows the real reason for the freeze on defensive weapon sales to long time ally, Taiwan, weapons authorized if not mandated by the Taiwan Relations Act.

WARNING: Since this was a private conversation you may find some language used by President Obama shocking/offensive.

Man vs Screwed-up System

MI Man not the Dad, but Owes the State Welfare Reimbursement Anyway

Former Texas Supremes Betray the Republicans that Elected Them

by Timothy Bradberry
President, Central Texas Republican Assembly (CTRA)
On behalf of the CTRA Board of Directors

In similar vein to Speaker Joe Straus “endorsing” Democrat Patrick Rose by headlining a fundraiser for Rose while Rose’s very viable Republican opponent, Jason Isaac was ignored by the Speaker, three former Republican members of the Texas Supreme Court have explicitly endorsed Democrat Kurt Kuhn in his bid for the 3rd Court of Appeals while Kuhn’s very viable Republican opponent, former District Judge Melissa Goodwin, is left with what can only feel like a knife in her back.

Here is how the announcement of this latest Republican betrayal is reported on the Texas Lawyer Blog (Tex Parte Blog):

On his campaign website, Kurt Kuhn, the Democrats’ nominee for a seat on Austin’s 3rd Court of Appeals, touts endorsements by three former Texas Supreme Court justices, all Republicans. Former Chief Justice Tom Phillips and former Justices Craig Enoch and Scott Brister confirm they have endorsed Kuhn, a partner in Austin’s Brown McCarroll. Phillips, now a partner in Baker Botts in Austin, says, “Most of us who have been on the [Supreme] Court in recent years do not regard the judiciary as a partisan enterprise.” Enoch, a shareholder in Winstead in Austin, says, “I’m retired [from the bench], so I’m free to express my opinion.” Brister, a partner in Andrews Kurth in Austin, says he has known Kuhn for a long time. “I think he’ll do a great job,” Brister says. Kuhn says he is trying to run a broad bipartisan campaign. “I’m not going to be a Democrat if I’m elected; I’m going to be a judge,” he says.

The former “Republican” Supremes may not view the judiciary as a partisan enterprise but if they truly want themselves to be seen as apolitical, they picked a strange time to stir the political pot by endorsing a Democrat in a general election. Also, former Chief Justice Tom Phillips' motivation for taking off his robe at this time in this election is clouded by the fact that he advocates for appointed rather than elected judges.

Regardless of their apolitical status or reasons for endorsing a Democrat I ask, like I did about Speaker Straus, what kind of Republicans are they? If they were members of the Central Texas Republican Assembly they would be expelled from membership as our members are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates of other political parties. Though we did not end up making an endorsement in the Republican Primary in the 3rd Court of Appeals race, once Republicans choose Melissa Goodwin we were and are bound to follow the lead of the Republican Primary voters and put our weight behind the Republican nominee. What the three former Supremes have done is to betray Republican Party voters, many of whom had previously voted them into office.

Apparently ignored by the three former Supremes, the reason we need Melissa Goodwin on the 3rd Court is her extensive experience with administrative law, criminal law, and family law. These three facets of the law account for nearly 2/3 of the cases that the 3rd Court will potentially hear on appeal. Goodwin brings the most experience to the table on these important areas of law and fills a void on the existing 3rd Court, which is made up almost entirely of former civil litigators who have represented deep pocketed clients and have very little experience representing the little guy or gal. Kuhn fits that mold, and if he is elected, he would add nothing to the court that's not already heavily represented (and thoroughly dominates at the Texas Supreme Court).

All evidence from her prior jurisprudence indicates that if Melissa Goodwin gets on the court she would not carry water for trial lawyers or business interests but would be fair and respect the right to a trial by jury. She would also bring important expertise in areas of law that are very much underrepresented on the appellate courts as described above. She has a lot to contribute that isn't there yet, unlike Kuhn.

In summary, Goodwin’s experience covers a supermajority of the kinds of cases that will come before the 3rd Court of Appeals and on the flip side Kurt Kuhn is lacking in the experience that is sore needed on the Court.

So, let me just say in response to this betrayal, Republicans should ignore the three former Supremes and give our full support (read money, money, money, etc.) and encouragement to Melissa Goodwin in her bid to be the next elected Republican on the 3rd Court of Appeals.

Is the Journolist a Hate Group?

In response to my first blog entry about UT's James K. Galbraith's being a part of the Journolist the professor himself responded that my characterization of the list as being that of a hate group was "entirely false" and that "Not every comment made on such a list bears repeating. But on the whole I found it useful and appropriate."

I guess definitions of "hate" can be seen in the eyes of the beholder so let's take a look at what I deem to be "hate."

Here's a few paragraphs from a story today on the American Thinker that describe but one apparently accepted tactic by members of Journolist:

Jonathan Strong of The Daily Caller broke the news about left-wing journalists conspiring on Journolist to kill the stories during the 2008 election about Barack Obama's relationship with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Strong writes,

"In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama's relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama's conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, "Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares -- and call them racists.""

Ackerman skipped the intermediary suggestion of even asking loaded questions of Obama's conservative critics and proceeded directly to proposing false accusations against figures -- "who cares" -- on the right.

What strikes me is the entirely capricious nature of Ackerman's false accusations. To paraphrase, his prescription is to "just levy accusations of racism against anyone who stands in the way." What a hateful thing to do to other people, to attempt to destroy their reputations with accusations of racism simply for the sake of changing the subject and pursuing your political agenda. Which then leads to the question of the motivation for such an awful act, which in my view could only be hate. Ackerman has so little disregard for his fellow man he would just sling a very hateful accusation willy nilly.


I don't know about the professor but engaging in knowingly false race-baiting is a particularly hateful act in my view and should be discouraged and reprimanded when it occurs.

Okay, so that's but one example. I don't guess it's fair to call everyone on the list a hate group member because of that. Or is it?

The American Thinker article makes the pertinent comment that:

The fact that such open malice of at least a few of the four hundred "professionals" on Journolist did not result in their expulsion from this professional Listserv, and indeed seemed tolerated at the time by its members and now by its defenders, would seem to indicate a more widespread problem. The dog doesn't bark when it's comfortable with the visitor.

More will be coming out about this list in the days ahead.

I'll tackle the example of hatred toward Rush Limbaugh in a future note, when I have some free time. My non-tenured position requres that I work to pay the taxes that support the University of Texas and it's tenured professors.