Who would think that Texas Republicans weren’t really all that different from those in Massachusetts, Connecticut, or New Jersey?
I must admit I haven’t kept up with politics, especially at the state level, for very long. With a session of about four months every other year with little media attention, it can be easy to miss. It wasn’t until 2007 that I tried to keep up with what went on, a difficult task for a conservative far from Austin.
I see relatively little discussion of the Texas legislature relative to those in other states, and I can’t figure out why that is. Forget ANY up-to-date conservative perspectives, publications, or discussion web sites. Even the mainstream media is more focused on city politics. By the looks of things, I’m guessing that the vast majority of Texans, particularly Texas Republicans, are paying NO attention and could likely not even name their state representative or senator. Texas voters need to realize NOW that they cannot continue to do so if they don’t wish to be overtaken by the left.
My representative spoke last year at a small gathering, and he said that most Republicans in the state legislature were quite liberal. The truth is that voters don’t pay much attention to these races. Incumbents win primaries, though they rarely face any challenges; and general elections are based on party ID. It makes sense. I know that the house Republicans cannot possibly be reflecting the views of the people who elected them. If they were, people would have voted for the Democrat.
This year, former house Speaker Tom Craddick, who apparently was a conservative, was thought to be “too divisive” by certain Republicans. In particular, it was a “gang of 11″ who sought his defeat. From everything I heard and read, it was only because of him that conservatives ever stood a chance at having any legislation voted on.
So these eleven RINOs teamed up with the Democrats to unite against Tom Craddick in support of one of the eleven, Joe Straus.
Joe Straus appears to be a NIGHTMARE for Texas and for the Republican party. You know it’s a problem when he is supported by the most liberal Democrats and praised by the media as one who will end the “divisiveness” and bring “diversity” to the legislature (apparently because he is Jewish). For those who didn’t know, politics is SUPPOSED to be “divisive” by nature. That’s why the legislature still exists. Anyway, there is a sickening similarity between the press’s depictions of Straus and Obama. It literally makes me want to vomit.
It seems Craddick was opposed for not allowing for debate of matters he did not agree with. It’s hard to confirm because there is so little unbiased information available. Yet that is exactly why Democrats and liberals were so supportive of Straus. When you lack votes for your own legislation, your best bet is to stop the majority from bringing up and debating their legislation. So now rather than opening debate to both sides, as the Dallas Morning News would have us believe, the new speaker will shut off debate for anything conservatives might support. Time will tell if Texas voters fall for the media’s lies.
So if you are a Texan with a Republican representative, I urge you to examine his record and positions. As believers in federalism, we must set the bar higher and be a lot more picky when it comes to state-level officials. Unfortunately, people all too often seem to do just the polar opposite.
So if your representative is one of the eleven RINOs listed below, I urge you to vote against him in 2010:
Charlie Geren
Rob Eissler
Brian McCall
Burt Solomons
Jim Pitts
Tommy Merritt
Delwin Jones
Byron Cook
Jim Keffer
Joe Straus
Edmund Kuempel
Those eleven MUST be defeated.
As many have pointed out here, it’s fine to welcome Republicans into the party who disagree on some fundamental issues. However, such people should not be placed in any sort of leadership position to represent the party, especially when their goal is to “end divisiveness” (aka silence debate on matters where they are in the party minority).
Of course now we’ve got Kay Barely Republican to worry about. I’ll save that discussion for another day except to say that it may come to illustrate my point quite well.
Moe Lane
Dan McLaughlin
Neil Stevens
Daniel Horowitz
Craddick Needed to Go
jf55510 Thursday, January 15th at 6:05PM EST (link)Craddick needed to go. When he became speaker, Republicans had 88 of the 150 seats. After three Craddick led sessions, Republicans had 76 (and were but 10 votes from being at 75) of the 150 seats. Craddick made reps vote against their district, otherwise he would retaliate against them by giving them primary opponents, supporting democrat general opponents with cash, or punitive actions on committee appointments. Even if the rep was a good solid conservative. Further, he would hold up campaign cash (from his speakers account) and PAC’s, until the candidates would present their plans to his daughter and his hand picked political consultants and would restrict how the candidates wanted to run their campaigns. Finally, he would primary good conservatives because he didn’t like them for his handpicked candidate, this caused a few seats to flip from R to D.
Straus, while not the person I would have picked for speaker, is not a terrible choice. He’s a good solid conservative. The reason the D’s like him, is that he isn’t Craddick.
Now that Craddick is gone, republican house members can actually do good work.
Indeed Craddick needed to go
E Pluribus Unum (Diary) Thursday, January 15th at 6:13PM EST (link)But this little bit of stage craft was engineered by Dems, for Dems. Straus is NOT a good solid conservative, though I’d not exactly call him a RINO.
And the 11 that voted for Straus, including himself, willfully sold out the Republican Party and should be primaried.
Kill the Terrorists
Protect the Borders
Punch the Hippies h/t IMAO
It was
jf55510 Thursday, January 15th at 7:34PM EST (link)It was engineered by Dems, but I doubt you will see Straus play puppet master for Jim Dunham.
Straus is a solid conservative. Paul Burka, takes a look at the votes that supposedly make Straus a liberal.
http://www.texasmonthly.com/blogs/burkablog/?p=2336
Like I said, Straus wouldn’t have been my choice for speaker. If Craddick had thought of the party before himself and dropped out earlier we probably have a Speaker Solomns or a Speaker Smithee both which would have been preferable.
You are going to find that Straus is more in line with the belief of Texans than Craddick every was. That is a good thing for a party that is close to losing the State House, only eight years after gaining it.
Which Texans?
Menlo (Diary) Friday, January 16th at 12:17AM EST (link)I must ask, how on earth do you know what is “more in line with the beliefs of Texans?” Maybe none of them are.
His beliefs obviously aren’t more in line with the beliefs of unborn Texans. And given the issues cited, I do not think more voting adults would be any more in line with Straus. Unless you have evidence to the contrary, a few party switches alone don’t really tell us enough to form such conclusions. The party is still suffering from problems at the federal level; and Republicans in general are being blamed. Becoming more like Democrats won’t help restore our reputation, especially at the state level.
Anyway, if this is “in line with the belief of Texans,” then perhaps they are voting for the wrong party. One shouldn’t side with the majority just to win elections. The goal should be to get the majority to side with oneself or one’s philosophies. A person who does otherwise stands for nothing and has no business running for any elected office and certainly no place in the Republican Party.
“The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” -Felix Frankfurter
Like I said
jf55510 Friday, January 16th at 12:25AM EST (link)Like I said, your “reasoning” is why republicans are losing elections. Straus is pro-life. As soon as you accept that, you’ll be in a better place to discuss the merits of Speaker Straus. Further, Straus isn’t acting like a democrat, and having him as a Speaker doesn’t make him a stalking horse for democrats. Straus is a conservative and he’ll govern as such. The difference between him and Craddick is that Straus won’t piss everyone off.
He most certainly is terrible.
Menlo (Diary) Thursday, January 15th at 6:24PM EST (link)That was the point. I can’t say too much about Craddick and would like to know where you found your information, but Straus most certainly is NOT a conservative and ought NOT be representing the party or the state. As I said, he is a nightmare!
I get the impression either you are a liberal, or you are totally out of touch with these people and their record and positions.
I’ll have to disagree also on your assertion of Democrats and the media. They like him because he is a liberal and will not allow conservatives to bring legislation to the floor. Ending “divisiveness” should not be a goal of any legislative body.
The legislature cannot do “good work” with that man in charge, and anyone who supported Straus ought to be voted out. As far as I’m concerned, it would serve them right to get nothing done.
“The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” -Felix Frankfurter
Straus
jf55510 Thursday, January 15th at 7:39PM EST (link)Straus is not terrible. You can’t point to anything other than democrats and the media like him that makes him terrible. You can’t point to a vote or a single action which makes him terrible. Other than deciding that Craddick was not the best Speaker for the State. It is humorous that you decry Straus, when you say, “I must admit I haven’t kept up with politics, especially at the state level, for very long.” Yet you condemn, that which you not know.
I am neither a liberal, nor unaware of these peoples positions. There is nothing which gives me pause with Straus’ record other than his lack of experience.
Ending divisiveness is necessary when the divisiveness prevents the legislature from representing the people and that is what happened under Craddick.
"Ending divisiveness" is not a valid policy goal ...
Martin Knight (Diary) Thursday, January 15th at 8:02PM EST (link)Just saying …
It is
jf55510 Thursday, January 15th at 8:10PM EST (link)It is a valid policy goal when the divisiveness keeps policy from being enacted because of the divisiveness. With like a week left in the last session, when the House was trying to pass bills, the budget, the House was blown up because of Craddick pissing everyone off.
Oh yes I can!
Menlo (Diary) Thursday, January 15th at 10:57PM EST (link)I know that he is a rabid pro-abort in supporting an unlimited right for people licensed to save lives to kill and torture unborn children. That alone is enough to make him terrible and one hundred percent undeserving of this position!
Also an automatic disqualifier was his support of the governor’s mandatory HPV vaccine policy for teenage girls. He was one of 23 to vote against repealing that mandate.
If that is not enough, he proposed intrusive “energy efficiency” mandates, voted for a new business tax, voted to increase state budget spending by 19 percent over two years, opposed school choice, supported homosexual adoptions, and the list goes on.
I’m not an idiot, and I certainly do not condemn what I do not know. He does not belong where he is, nor do many of the other so-called “Republicans” in the legislature, particularly the equally terrible gang of 11 supporting him. He is not a conservative, he is a horrible person for the job, and he should be opposed for this position at all costs.
As Martin Knight mentioned, ending “divisiveness” is not a valid goal. If the people aren’t being represented to their satisfaction, it is up to them to elect someone else. Meanwhile, they need to be aware of the facts regarding their own elected officials so they can vote accordingly.
“The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” -Felix Frankfurter
Pathetic
jf55510 Thursday, January 15th at 11:51PM EST (link)You need to look past the talking points and learn what was actually being voted on. I would love to see proof that all of those things are true. I guarantee you that they are not all true.
- Straus is not pro-abortion, he is pro-life
- The governor’s EO did not made HPV vaccine shots for teenage girls, so your criticism on that issue is wrong
- He proposed a single energy efficiency mandate, and that mandate said that schools should put solar panels on new buildings. There is nothing bad about it. The other energy efficiency bills dealt with setting goals, not mandates, for the state to enact policies to reduce energy consumption. That is a conservative goal. Reducing the cost of government by efficiency.
- Now, your business tax comments shows you do not know of what you speak. He voted for that, as did about 90% of republicans. Additionally, with the new margins tax, the proper phrase, we got reduced property taxes. Finally, if the legislature hadn’t of passed the new margins tax, the Court would have figured out a tax scheme for us as the previous system was ruled unconstitutional. Now, the margins tax isn’t perfect, yet it is better than most other options, unless you want an income tax.
- That 19% is nothing. That restored previous funding cuts from 2003 when the legislature cut the budget because of money problems. Additionally, only 11 republicans voted against that appropriations bill. Thusly, in your world, no republican is really good to be speaker. You want Jim Dunham as speaker?
- Against school choice? Straus joined about 70 of his republican house colleagues in that vote.
- Supported homosexual adoption? Who cares? You want to know why republicans are getting killed at the ballot box, nonsense like this.
You make Straus seem like some evil boogey man. When in fact he is in the mainstream of the Texas voter. Now, if you want to make republicans a minority again, sure, go ahead and keep supporting the Phil Kings of the state. That will make us a minority party within five years. But I prefer the republicans to be in the majority.
Finally a word on divisiveness. The people weren’t being represented to their satisfaction, so they did what you suggest and got rid of Craddick and put in Straus. Now, we could have had a better Speaker but Craddick’s huge ego prevented him from seeing that he could never win. Craddick was a bad speaker and his “leadership” led republicans from having 88/150 to 76/150. His “leadership” kept the people’s work from getting done and the best interest of the state from being fulfilled. It was a good day when Craddick went down.
You are what is wrong with republicans today. Taking talking points at face value and them spouting them as gospel. You attack a fine conservative in Straus because he’s only 90% conservative instead of 100% conservative. And then you wonder why the four largest counties in the State have turned to the democrats. It isn’t because of voters in inner city, it is because republicans have alienated their suburbian base with nonsense like a huge fight over homosexual adoption.
Check the record
Menlo (Diary) Friday, January 16th at 12:57AM EST (link)He is NOT pro-life. He has stated and been quoted as supporting abortion in a recent article, he has voted likewise, and he has received the support of Planned Parenthood and NARAL. This indeed is key at the state level. You’d better check up on that again.
As for the matters where many other Republicans joined him, that is part of my complaint here. As my own representative said, most Texas Republicans in the house are not acting like conservatives. That’s why I ask people to check their representatives’ records and statements. Of course as I said, I’m going to be more picky about conservatism at the state level.
I believe Republicans have lost in recent years due to dissatisfaction with Bush, the federal government, and the state of the country. People are looking at parties rather than candidates, which obviously tells us little. That is also part of my complaint. What about the records of the defeated Republicans? I don’t see Craddick being defeated by his district. Neither was my representative Ken Paxton, who is a pretty reliable conservative. In any case, it’s going to be difficult to pinpoint any one reason.
“The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” -Felix Frankfurter
Sigh...
jf55510 Friday, January 16th at 1:13AM EST (link)Here is Straus on abortion:
SMITH: Let me just stick with this issue for a second because it’s important to get some clarity for everybody out there as to what exactly you believe. You support, to the degree that the law provides it now, a legal right to abortion?
STRAUS: The law of land is federal law, and it’s not going to get changed by Obama for sure. As the speaker my agenda isn’t the House’s agenda. The presiding officer, Speaker of the House, should be there to facilitate the will of the House. The last part of that statement [or abortion] said if members feel differently or have an approach on this that they can convince other members to support, game on.
http://www.texasmonthly.com/blogs/stateofmine/?p=1059
Until the Supreme Court strikes down Roe v. Wade and it’s progeny, Straus is right and abortion is legal. The state house can’t change that. It doesn’t make Straus pro-choice, it makes him a realist who doesn’t want to waste his time on issues that he can’t change.
Republicans have lost in the past because they stopped caring about the middle class and doing what is best for the people. Instead they focus on non-sense like homosexual adoption. That is the reason that the republican brand has been harmed.
I disagree
Menlo (Diary) Friday, January 16th at 2:00AM EST (link)The court doesn’t have the right to make law. Roe is invalid because it is not a law and not a Constitutional interpretation but a lie based on lies. As such, states should be ignoring it just as they would an order to jump off a bridge.
Sadly, no state has done that (and I don’t expect Texas will). And it is for that reason the court has upheld the ruling. The court felt that by obeying it, states recognized it as a reasonable and legitimate interpretation of actual law.
There are still regulations though that reduce abortions. This session was supposed to include an ultrasound and license plate bill, one of which I believe actually got through the senate last year. If I thought Straus were to allow debate on those, which I think the house majority might support, maybe my opinion of him as speaker could change a little. However, I would be surprised given what I have been led to believe from both conservatives and liberal sources.
Anyway, I did read an article a couple days ago quoting Straus saying he supported a right to abortion.
“The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” -Felix Frankfurter
Oh my...
jf55510 Friday, January 16th at 2:18AM EST (link)These are two of the most ignorant paragraphs I have ever read
[i]The court doesn’t have the right to make law. Roe is invalid because it is not a law and not a Constitutional interpretation but a lie based on lies. As such, states should be ignoring it just as they would an order to jump off a bridge.
Sadly, no state has done that (and I don’t expect Texas will). And it is for that reason the court has upheld the ruling. The court felt that by obeying it, states recognized it as a reasonable and legitimate interpretation of actual law. [/i]
Roe v. Wade, while I believe is an incredibly incorrect decision but it is not invalid, it is the law of the land, and it is a Constitutional interpretation.
Additionally, you are criticizing Straus for actions he hasn’t done. Way to be a good person there. Get to me when he stops pro-life bills from coming to the floor (it ain’t gonna happen). Stop trying to make Straus out to be some liberal boogey man when it isn’t the case.
You are wrong
Menlo (Diary) Friday, January 16th at 2:41PM EST (link)Straus is pro-abortion because he voted against modest pro-life bills in 2005, received a high voting score and campaign contributions from Planned Parenthood and NARAL and low scores from pro-life groups. Moreover, pro-life people do not “support the right to abortion.”
You are wrong about Roe. It is NOT valid, NOT law and is NOT a Constitutional interpretation as is evident by any literate person. It is no more legitimate than an order to jump off a bridge. It is an UNCONSTITUTIONAL sadistic lie, and it ought to be ignored and defied.
“The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” -Felix Frankfurter
And yet
jf55510 Friday, January 16th at 2:52PM EST (link)You have yet to supply a single fact to support your statements about Straus’ supposed pro-abortion stances. When I have shown quotes showing that Straus is pro-life.
You are insane if you think that Roe is not valid, is not law and is not a constitutional interpretation. I vehemently disagree with the holding and reasoning in Roe, that doesn’t mean it isn’t the law of the land.
Law
Menlo (Diary) Friday, January 16th at 4:06PM EST (link)The Constitution gives Congress and the states, not the courts, the authority to make law. Because there is nothing in the Constitution to support a right to abortion, directly or indirectly, it is not law. If anything, the Constitution would prohibit abortion.
Would a ruling ordering people to jump off bridges be “law” in your view? The court’s action is clearly illegal and unconstitutional, and it is wrong to follow it. One would have to be insane or illiterate to think it is an interpretation of any existing law. Even if it were, it should not be respected any more than Hitler’s orders to the Nazi death camp guards!
As for Straus’s record, check amendments 4, 9, and 10 to SB 419 in the 2005 session. In those, he favored a loosening the exception for third trimester abortion restrictions. In the 2007 session, he voted in favor of Amendment 20 to HB 1 to move funds from crisis pregnacy centers to child abuse prevention.
For information on his contributions and quote, see http://www.americansforprosperity.org/010609-defender-american-dream-become-texas-house-speaker
Feel free to disagree, but I think that’s quite clear.
“The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” -Felix Frankfurter
They already vote with Dems on policy ... why not on leadership votes? [nt]
Martin Knight (Diary) Thursday, January 15th at 6:31PM EST (link)Guilty as charged
scottbomb (Diary) Thursday, January 15th at 7:57PM EST (link)I paid no attention to the Craddick controversy and I can’t name my state rep. I’ve never paid much attention to state politics because I’ve always assumed Texas is and always will be a red state. This belief was somewhat shaken a couple years ago when Democrats took control of Dallas County (but not the city as Leppert (R) became mayor). I chaulk it up to the fact that most big cities vote Democrat thanks to the concentration of poverty-level voters who think the Dems are going to take care of them and blue-collar voters who think the Dems care about “the little guy” while Republicans represent (in their minds) the rich boss they resent.
Of course one of the worst presidents we ever had, LBJ, hailed from Texas. [scottbomb hangs head in shame]
[A strange irony just occured to me. A terribly liberal president, LBJ, came from a state that is now considered one of the most conervative. The founder of modern conservatism, Reagan, came from a state that's now solid blue and Republicans have mostly written off.]
www.HowObamaGotElected.com
“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of ‘liberalism’, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.” – Norman Thomas, U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate 1940, 1944 and 1948
Texas
jf55510 Thursday, January 15th at 8:15PM EST (link)Texas will not always stay a red state. With the growth of foreigners (read Yankees) moving into the state and the growth of the Hispanic population, Texas could turn blue within 20 years unless Republicans get their act together.
Dallas Co. went D and this last election Harris Co. went D. It happened because the republicans lost their advantage in the suburbs because a lot of people are turned off by their uber social-conservatism of the Tom Craddick’s of the party. Instead of focusing on issues that impact most Texans, such as the economy, jobs and education, elected Republicans like Craddick are more concerned with whether gays can adopt. That is why Straus is good for the party. He is a strong economic conservative. He’s also a social conservative but he isn’t like Huckabee, throwing it in your face.
Think again
Menlo (Diary) Thursday, January 15th at 11:39PM EST (link)First of all, do you have any actual data or polls to back up your assertion about why party affiliation changed? Or are you just making an assumption based on your own views and those of people you know and talk to (and the Dallas Morning News editorial boards)? I’m betting on the latter.
None of the so-called “social” issues have been “thrown in the face” of voters by Texas Republicans, nor have they been a primary focus except by the liberal media who wish to get more liberals elected. You are just unhappy that they exist at all and wish, like Straus and the media, to eliminate it altogether.
Anyway, Straus is no social conservative, not even remotely close. As I said, he supports an unlimited right to kill unborn children. That is not a silly side issue or distraction but a matter of fundamental human rights. Close to a hundred thousand Texas babies are being killed by people who are licensed by the state to save lives; and it should not be allowed to go away.
To the contrary, it seems to me that it is the liberals who will fight their darndest to stop conservatives, even if it means blocking legislation on other matters.
What you want to do is not include economic and educational policy but exclude those areas that don’t fit your agenda. Here’s a news flash. You can do both!
Quite honestly though, your rhetoric implies that you are either a liberal or you lack any knowledge of the people or the issues, despite your claims to the contrary.
Republicans certainly will not win elections by becoming more like Democrats on anything. If voters truly become more liberal, then the state should turn blue for that reason. Caving in to Democrats just to get more votes is not a principled position and has no place in the Republican party.
“The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” -Felix Frankfurter
Silliness
jf55510 Friday, January 16th at 12:06AM EST (link)The facts are in the election results. The republicans lost Dallas County in 2006. The republicans basically lost Harris County in 2008. There are maybe 10 state district judges, out of about 100 judges in Harris, Bexar, and Dallas county. Before 2006, there were maybe 10 democrat state district judges in Harris, Bexar, and Dallas county. In 2008 the republicans lost the State House seat covering Williamson County. WilCo is one of the reddest counties in the State. In 2006, Republicans were destroyed in Hays Co., which would be a fair bell weather county for the state. In 2008 republicans lost a State Senate seat covering Tarrant Count. In 2008 Republican statewide judicial races were sitting at 52/45 range while in 2006 judges were sitting winning percentages of 75/25 and the R statewides at a whole were winning at a 59/41 clip. In 2004 Republicans were so strong Democrats didn’t even field candidates. I am making no assumptions. I see Republicans losing in what traditionally republican voting areas. Additionally, republican self identifies in polls are down to just above 50%. With the growth of the Hispanic population in Texas, that isn’t good.
I don’t wish for social issues to be swept away. However, Texas republicans are selling themselves as social conservatives, as they are now, instead of conservatives who are working to have a robust economy, to fix schools, to bring more jobs to Texas they lose the middle class suburban voter. I have a newsflash for you. The average family of four, bringing home a combined 75k a year doesn’t give a rats ass about homosexual adoption.
When you say Straus is pro-abortion, you just sound ignorant. Put down Cathy Adams’ latest rant and actually look at the issues.
I am neither liberal or lacking in knowledge of the issues. I’ve worked in Austin and worked on policy issues. I know exactly what I am talking about.
Republicans won’t win elections by becoming democrats, but that isn’t what I’m advocating. Republicans will win by acting like they care about the middle class and not acting like Bible thumping morons.
Here is a fun exercise, who do you support for Governor, and why. You get to choose from Governor Perry or Senator Hutchison.
Election results aren't enough
Menlo (Diary) Friday, January 16th at 1:36AM EST (link)That likely tells us more about parties in general formed from perceptions of Bush and the federal government. How many people are looking at the records of their own representatives?
Your perception of “social” conservatives is one formed by the liberal media. THEY are the ones selling them as such in hopes of making it appear they care about nothing else, when nothing could be farther from the truth. Quite honestly though, you have to dig deep to find where some state reps stand on ANYTHING, especially those without much of a voting record. I’m pretty confident that most Texans aren’t really aware of what is going on in Austin.
No, Straus is pro-abortion. Check his quotes, his voting record, his endorsements, and his campaign contributions.
As for governor, I was hoping Dan Patrick would run. At this point, I’m inclined to support neither one. As my original post implies at the end, I’ve ruled out Hutchison completely. Otherwise, that’s too far for me to think right now.
“The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” -Felix Frankfurter
Election Results plus...
jf55510 Friday, January 16th at 1:48AM EST (link)Elections results plus polls showing self identification at slightly above 50% among Texas as republicans show that republicans are losing a market share in Texas. Republicans aren’t losing Harris, Bexar, and Dallas counties because of Bush. They are losing those counties because their social conservative message isn’t reaching middle class voters. In fact, such social conservative message are a distinct turnoff to new young voters. The republican voter is getting older while the democrat voter is younger. So if the Republican party wants to remain a viable long term party, they must be able to reach the young voters. This isn’t the media telling me anything, it is me looking at the numbers and coming to a conclusion.
I know Straus’ record and his quotes and he isn’t pro-abortion. The longer you hang on to that notion the less credibility ou have.
Dan Patrick would guarantee a democratic win in the governors mansion. Additionally, many of the things you ding Straus for are Perry initiatives. Thusly, you don’t support the most conservative governor in the State’s history.
Conclusion
Menlo (Diary) Friday, January 16th at 2:16AM EST (link)Again, party ID is the issue here. Election results are a result of party ID. This is something that is happening all across the nation.
The younger voters you mention are not going to support any part of the Republican platform. They certainly aren’t turned on by any other type of conservatism either. A whopping four percent of the population takes a libertarian view, so I wouldn’ count on that. Otherwise, I wouldn’t be so quick to jump to conclusions about younger voters or any voters. Regardless, we need to work to change their views rather than changing ours.
“The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” -Felix Frankfurter
Umm
jf55510 Friday, January 16th at 2:19AM EST (link)The republican party ID is falling across the state as I have been trying to tell you the entire night. It is seen in poll results and election results.
Young voters would be drawn to the republican party if the party emphasized the economic platform of the party. But instead the party prefers to push the social agenda which pushes young voters off.
Wrong
Menlo (Diary) Friday, January 16th at 2:32PM EST (link)Republican Party ID is on the decline nationwide, not uniquely in Texas. You are jumping to the wrong conclusions as to why that is.
I can guarnatee you libertarianism is NOT going to be a winning philosophy, especially among younger voters. Indeed younger people are just as pro-life as older voters, if not more so, and pretty much more liberal on everything else, particularly on economic issues.
Regardless, “the party” is not “pushing the social agenda” any more than ever before. The media does that to give the FALSE illusion there is nothing else to it.
“The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” -Felix Frankfurter
No
jf55510 Friday, January 16th at 2:55PM EST (link)I am not jumping to an erroneous conclusion as to why republican ID is dropping. The reason is they stopped acting conservative and focusing on smaller government. Instead they spend a bunch and then act like holier than thou hypocrites. It is pretty simple.
I am not saying become a libertarian. Young people may be as pro-life as older folks, but they don’t care about social issues at all. They care about economic issues. You look at polling and Obama destroyed McCain among young voters because he focused on what concerned them, the economy and Obama was able to relate to them better than McCain was.
The party is pushing a social agenda more than before because they know they have no room to stand on economics because they have acted like democrats.
You're wrong
Menlo (Diary) Friday, January 16th at 4:23PM EST (link)First off, you are misrepresenting current Republicans. They may have stopped acting like Republicans and conservatives, but they have CERTAINLY not “focused” on “social” issues as you incorrectly continue to claim. That has generally been a focus of the media and other liberals who like to distort things. THEY focus on the things fewer people prioritize when discussing a Republican.
Again, voting priorities are not all that different for younger voters than for older people who vote similarly. There certainly are not any fewer who care about protecting life in that group than among older people. The fact that younger voters care mostly about the economy right now gives no indication of their party preference. Every demographic is most worried about the economy now. Both parties have economic positions. On the economy, younger people overwhelmingly prefer the position of Democrats to the more conservative positions.
It is a total lie to say that the party is “pushing a social agenda more” when in fact it has done so LESS if anything! It’s fine to argue for a much-needed change in economic policies and positions, but it doesn’t mean you drop everything else.
“The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” -Felix Frankfurter