Promoted from the diaries.

Welcome back to Texas, Governor! You got into this race to provide American conservatives with a choice in the Presidential race. We asked for a proven leader and you stepped up. Five months ago I hoped to be looking at a very different race than we are today but it wasn’t in the cards.

The silver lining in this race for me (most texans really) has always been that we either got to have you serve as President, or you came back to finish out your four year term as governor of our great state. It’s the rest of the country that lost out.

Even as you return to Texas, you have something to prove. Liberals and moderates have already set to work laying out their narrative for the next two years…and, big surprise, it involves you being a lame duck Governor. There is nothing they would enjoy more than the opportunity to sideline your conservative influence and they will do everything within their power to achieve that end. I expect more from you than that and have no doubt that you will prove me right.

As I see it, you have two choices:

1. Allow yourself to be squeezed into the mold of a lame duck and pushed to the margin of political relevancy or,
2. Spend the next couple years as Governor fighting the same battle you hoped to take to Washington. Fighting in such a way that every conservative American asks themselves why they didn’t put you in the Whitehouse.

Here are a few of the things I want to see come out of your last two years as our Governor:

• Push the GOP caucus in the TX House and Senate to stand up for the Republican platform. Moderate House leadership under Joe Straus and lack of resolve from GOP Senators led to several items of unfinished business this last legislative session. That needs to fixed.
• Stronger measures to push back against illegal immigration. There is a limit to what you can do as Governor but we’re sure not getting any help from the Federal Government. Banning sanctuary cities is an important next step.
• Deny legislators the opportunity to use budgetary gimmicks. DC is worse but too many of our legislators in Austin aren’t willing to stand up for fiscal responsibility. You need to show them the way.
• Further applying the principles you championed during your campaign back here in Texas. You’ve fought for them through the last 10 years but there’s still much more to do.

Ultimately, your impact in the remainder of your term is up to you. My hope is that you will bring the same fight you’ve shown on the campaign trail back to make Texas a more conservative and more prosperous state.

Davy Crocket delivered these parting words to the people of Tennessee after losing his reelection bid to Congress: “You may all go to Hell, and I will go to Texas.” I’m pretty sure you were thinking the same thing as you announced your withdrawal from the race this morning.

From the diaries . . .

Just in case all the early primary fun hasn’t put you in a fetal position next to the liquor cabinet, maybe this will finish the job:

After his aborted press tour/election tease, Donald Trump nearly immediately went back to hinting at an independent run for President. Speculation has been driven through the last few months by surrogates, media interviews and a rising frustration with the field of Republican candidates. We even had a few moments earlier this month when it looked like some of the GOP presidential candidates would actually take part in a debate that Trump moderated. Thankfully, that moment of insanity passed.

This afternoon I was forwarded an email that originated with Everett Wilkinson (@TEApartyCzar) of South Florida. Everett describes himself as, “a rising local and national star in the tea party movement and the founder & chairman of South Florida Tea Party as well as the Florida Tea Party and Tea Party Chamber of Commerce.” The email is copied below in its entirety:

Read More →

The last week or so I’ve been hearing more and more buzz about the GOP Senate Primary in Pennsylvania. Among the several candidates seeking the job, it seems that John Vernon is coming out pretty strong and new polling is showing a strong initial lead.

Sen. Bob Casey’s favorable rating is sitting at 47% right now, one point less than Obama’s. Against a generic GOP opponent he’s taking 45% among independents.

John, as well as several of the other Republicans running for the seat, is of the TEA Party persuasion but his added military and leadership experience drew strong support in the polling and pushed him to the head of the pack. In a head to head matchup against the rest of the announced GOP Primary field, Vernon took 29%, nearly twice the percentage of the second place finisher (15%).

With Casey showing vulnerability and Vernon making a strong showing among GOP primary voters he’s definitely somebody to watch as the election cycle heats up!

Cross-posted from AmericanMajority.org

As one of my mentors, Dr. Larry Arnn, is fond of saying, “A thing is good when it performs the purpose for which it was made.” A chair you can’t sit in or a gun that won’t shoot straight fail that test. So does a guard dog that won’t bark at bad guys.

Being a guard dog is an interesting job. He stands apart from the world around him in a John Wayne-esqe manner. His demeanor is informed by a constant awareness of his primary purpose: alarm and defense. Any other role he may fill is secondary to that of guardianship. Failing to raise the alarm or defend his charge are not forgivable offenses.

Here’s the thing about being a being a guard dog: your decision to bark or defend isn’t based on pragmatism or the number of attackers; it is solely based on the presence of danger. I borrowed this metaphor from David Smith who went on to say that, “A K9 watchdog is never expected to be able to beat every enemy that comes to the house. If the robber has a gun the watchdog will lose — and become a family legend.”

As conservative activists we are political guard dogs. This means that we hold people accountable. Like canine guardians, we watch for danger and upon discovery we move to the offense, barking like hell is upon us. We won’t always win but the idea of remaining silent should revolt us.

In Texas we just finished the race for Speaker of the House of Representatives. It was one of those times when the barking dogs took a bullet. Not unlike the Democrats during the HCR debates, liberal Republicans thumbed their noses at their constituents’ clear demands. Whether a similar electoral judgment day is on the horizon stands as an open question.

While there was a decent degree of grassroots unity in calling for a more conservative Speaker, I have been sorely disappointed in the reaction from many individuals and groups since the vote was taken. It’s a chronic problem among conservatives when dealing with political leadership elections. We win elections then exert little weight in leadership fights and quickly forget about the outcome, when we bother to involve ourselves at all.

In the end, leadership elections are treated as inconsequential when in reality they stand among the most important votes cast during a legislative session.

So what do you do if the good guys lose a leadership fight? The answer has two words: Primary Elections. Am I saying that candidates should be running against the incumbents based on this one vote? Possibly. We sure thought one vote was enough to identify the bad guys when it came to TARP or HCR. One vote may be enough. We can say with certainty that it is a vote with enough import that recovery from it could be difficult.

The reaction that we should be seeing among conservatives is a redoubled dedication to hold their legislators accountable, letting them know they are on a short leash and an active search for primary election opponents. This should be a pretty standard response to any legislative setback we face.

A number of people have taken a much different path. Instead of enforcing accountability they are easily swallowing the milk toast excuses they are fed by their legislators. Excuses of, “but the Speaker won’t like me,” and, “my vote wouldn’t have made a difference,” are being accepted without question.

Too many Texans, even conservatives, have quickly announced that they are willing to accept this temporary defeat as permanent and fall into line behind the same legislators who have so recently voted against their interest. The about face is stunning. Instead of holding their elected officials accountable, they are in essence saying, “We were just kidding. We’re not THAT serious about holding you accountable.”

Does this mean that I won’t consider future votes in my appraisal of which Representatives should face primary opposition? No. This egregious violation of trust does, however, indicate that we can probably do better than many of our current Representatives have to offer. I’m confident that many good things will come out of this legislative session but my doubts remain high that conservative gains will be as significant as they could have been under the leadership of a solid conservative. If this is the case then accountability must be enforced against those who insisted on upholding the status quo.

Conservatives across the nation have been given an incredible opportunity to prove the viability of our ideals. In the November election Republicans gained nearly 700 state legislative seats, a number of Governorships, a majority in the US House and a near tie in the Senate. Democrats were held to the smallest freshman class of any party since 1915.

Many lessons can be derived from this veritable landslide. First and foremost, don’t let the fact that Republicans were allowed to carry the banner of conservative enthusiasm to fool you into thinking this was an old-fashioned Republican Party victory. Democrats have been the worst enemies of liberty in the last years and so they held top spot on the political target list. Liberal Republicans are next.

American’s are giving conservatives and Republicans a chance but at the first sign of failing to follow through on promises or weak knees in the face of opposition they will look elsewhere. We have to prove that the conviction we shouted about during the last few years is actually worth fighting for. We were brought to power to do something; not just mark time.

Read More →

That’s the title of a blog post written last week by the Texas Monthly’s Paul Burka. It seems that he disagrees with the assertion from my last post that a vote for Speaker Joe Straus will go a long way to ensuring that Republican Representatives will face a primary challenger next year.

Here is his rather apt assessment of the attitude conservatives are holding regarding the Speaker race (I enjoy that he terms us “the Resistance”):

This is the argument of the Resistance: that it is safer to fight Straus in the streets of Paris than to sip wine with him in the sidewalk cafes and make yourself a target. Those who fail to join the Resistance will be singled out for retribution in the form of a primary opponents in 2012, recruited by the Resistance.

Burka goes on to talk about how it’s a stupid idea to go against Speaker Straus and that it’s really conservatives who go against Straus that should be worried about primary challengers.

The short story is that Burka is flat out wrong. He’s judging the game using an outdated rulebook. In pre-TEA Party days his arguments might have had more merit but in the face of the changing political landscape in Texas they are far off the mark.

The threat of primary challengers for Straus-Lackeys is a very real one. While many legislators are still viewing the Speaker battle as an insiders-only decision, we Texans are exercising our newly recognized right to give input into the matter. As with other legislative decisions, spitting in the face of your constituents has consequences and one of them is an increasing probability of a primary challenge.

Here are three original Straus supporters who well understand the threat of a primary challenge:

Read More →

From the diaries by Erick

What’s more corrupt than the lieutenant of a sitting Speaker of the House making threats against Representatives who refuse to support that speaker? Is it possible for someone to go further up the shameless meter than to draw redistricting maps to cut Representatives out of their districts in order to punish them for standing up to a bad politician?

If you answered, “No, it’s not possible,” then you’d be wrong.

Conservatives who came out and voted on Election Day need to make their voice heard again. We can not let the political class ignore us, and select a speaker who is not a conservative.

I told you on Friday that Rep. Brian Hughes had made allegations that a Straus lieutenant had made those very threats to him. He said that redistricting maps were being drawn to hurt Rep-elect Erwin Cain and Rep. Dan Flynn. When Straus said that those claims were outrageous, Rep. Hughes sent him an email naming the offending member. That brings us to today.

This morning there was a hearing of the Committee for General Investigating and Ethics. This committee is chaired by one of Straus’ closest allies, Rep. Chuck Hopson. Among the other four members of the committee, three are strong Straus supporters.

At the beginning of the committee meeting, Chairman Hopson announced that Rep. Larry Phillips (vice chair of the Ethics committee) was the member named by Rep. Hughes and that Phillips would not sit on the committee during this hearing. Following that two-minute statement they went into secret session. Representatives Hughes and Phillips were apparently the only non-committee members in the meeting.

When they emerged from their three-hour secret session, Hopson’s verdict that without a recording there wasn’t enough evidence to take action.

Here are the problems with this hearing:

1. Hopson should have handed this investigation over to the Attorney General’s office. He was given $42,000 from Straus during his campaign and the allegations that Hughes made against Phillips indicated that more than one member of the Straus leadership team was involved in the wrongdoing. In fact, if the allegations were true then it is likely that Straus himself was involved. Giving the investigation over to the AG’s office would have gone a long way to build voter confidence in the proceedings.

2. The meeting should have been open to the public. What we are dealing with here isn’t about a member of the House of Representatives saving face. It’s about whether or not you can use Capone-esque tactics to get yourself the Speaker’s chair! Transparency is critical and no one on Straus’ side seems to care about that at the moment.

3. Hughes testimony was under-oath while Phillips was not. While we have no idea what happened during the three hours of secret meeting, when the parties emerged and gave public testimony only Rep. Hughes was sworn in. Phillips’ testimony was given without any oath and he carefully avoided the press when he left.

This whole affair is turning into a circus. The Straus camp is trying to avoid dealing with the attacks made against him and just hoping that if they ignore the problem long enough that we will forget about it.

The responses to critiques of Straus can be pretty neatly organized into three categories: 1. Ad hominem attacks – Striking out at individuals that dare to question the Speaker Straus’ record. 2. “Nuh-uh!” – Saying that we’re wrong but failing to provide any evidence to support that statement. 3. Straw man – Promoting the idea that this whole fight is about getting Tom Craddick back into the Speaker’s chair.

Here’s what this whole fight boils down to: For the first time in Texas’ history, ordinary citizens have the opportunity to help impact the choice of who the Speaker of the House will be. It’s the epitome of a watershed moment. This is being made very clear by the number of establishment Republicans who are telling their constituents that this is a decision that should be left up to the members rather than influenced by us common folk.

Texans, Our Representatives work for us and every vote they cast is a reflection of our will. As conservatives, we care whether or not the speaker is a conservative. Representative Straus is not. Make sure your Representatives know where you stand! Hold them accountable if they go against you. Remember, we’re only a year away from the 2012 primary election filing deadline! Have you thought about running for the House? We need more conservatives to stand up and run.

By the way, check back tomorrow for some pretty interesting information about donations that Speaker Straus made during this year’s campaign cycle!

Freedom of speech is under attack courtesy of Texas House Speaker Joe Straus. He is effectively trying to stuff as much speech as possible into the definition of “political advertising,” hassling average Texans out of the conversation. In his interim charge to the General Investigating & Ethics Committee Straus commanded the following:

Review the definition of “political advertising” and determine whether the definition should be expanded to include content contained in blogs and other types of Internet communications.(For the complete list of interim charges click here.)

Read More →

I love analogies. The kryptonite analogy really captures the attitude of politicians who have been at the trough too long. Still, most politicians have the discipline not to tell you outright to butt out of the political process, much less investigate you like the Stazi.

Like Erick pointed out the other day, even in Texas being a Republican doesn’t necessarily mean you are a conservative. Here is more proof.

Until 2008 it was actually a crime in Texas under the state’s ethics rules for citizens to voice support or opposition for anybody running for Speaker of the House. This law, while longstanding, was blatantly un-constitutional. Thanks to the hard work of the great team at the Liberty Institute the situation was remedied (back then it was called Free Market Foundation.)

The Federal Court ruled that, “The election of the speaker is not, therefore, a matter of internal Housekeeping. It is an issue of great political importance and a legitimate subject for public debate.” (Free Market Foundation v. Reisman, 573 F.Supp.2d 952, 955 (W.D. Tex. 2008)

Since the decision in 2008 it has been legal for Texans to use their Constitutional right to free speech to voice their opinion regarding the election of one of Texas’ most powerful leaders. Still, some people don’t seem to like common folk like us speaking up.

A few weeks ago, Speaker Joe Straus (the liberal Republican speaker that is running for re-election) lashed out at “outside forces” that were trying to have an impact on the Speaker race. From that kind of label you might think that big corporate donors or crony lobbyists were slandering Straus and throwing big wads of money to fight his re-election. The reality is that the outcry for a conservative speaker is coming from you, the conservative resurgence.

As if the incumbent Speaker telling you to sit adown and shut-up isn’t enough, Chuck Hopson (Straus’ Democrat-recently-turned-Republican Chair of the House Ethics Committee) sent a letter to the legislature offering them a “word of caution.” In this letter Chairman Hopson points to anti-bribery statutes and insinuates that letting a constituent or organization influence your vote for Speaker is illegal.

Read More →

From the diaries by Erick

I wrote last week emphasizing the importance of TEA Party involvement this election cycle. In it I asked the question, “Are You Astroturf?” and I expressed my frustration with TEA Partiers who fail to follow through with meaningful action (phone-banking, block-walking, etc.) to back up their protest.

For those of you un-convinced of the impact that TEA Party activists can make in the next week and a half, I want to give you a case study:

Right now I’m in St. Louis, MO working for American Majority Action, in partnership with the St. Louis TEA Party and the Jefferson County TEA Party. We’re operating one of nine Liberty Headquarters funded by American Majority Action. Our goal is to lend aid to conservative organizations that are interested in getting involved in the hard work of winning elections. The non-glamorous side of politics, the block walking and phone banking, is what wins elections and the organizations we partner with understand this well.

The race that AMA and these Missouri TEA Party groups are focusing on is the Congressional battle in Missouri’s Third District. Incumbent Russ Carnahan (D) is facing off with TEA Party insurgent Ed Martin (R). While polling at the time of the primary showed Martin down by a very large margin, the activism of TEA Partiers has brought the race to a statistical dead heat.

Read More →