Seriously, why? I don’t understand it. It seems as though every single media outlet in Texas is willing to help Sen. Dan Patrick’s opponent in the election for Lt. Gov. and I keep asking myself why is that? What is so scary about Dan?
I’ve “known” Dan and his public personality longer than probably 99.9{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} of the people that are going to be voting in this election. I met him at a Luv Ya Blue rally back in ’79 and have followed his various adventures since. And there have been some adventures! When he first started 700 KSEV, he did morning sports talk, had the vasectomy on the air, took his dog Barney out to use the restroom leaving dead air, all kinds of wacky stuff. He was innovative and took risks – have you ever heard Rush Limbaugh thank Dan for having the courage to put Rush on in Houston? I have.
But he has never scared me. I just don’t understand that. His performance as chair of the Senate Education Committee last session should be proof to everyone that he can and will work with others to improve Texas.
Look, I’m voting for David Dewhurst and rooting for him to win. But if Dan gets into the runoff and then defeats David, Texas is going to be just fine. I promise!
The fact is that Dan has run an almost flawless race and since I pick on him and his team, it’s only fair to point that out. His general consultant is Allen Blakemore and his media guy is Vincent Harris. They have designed a path and Dan has been very disciplined in executing it.
I don’t know who produced it and can’t find it online but I heard Dan in a radio ad yesterday that just destroyed the slimy attack that Jerry Patterson threw at him about some dude working at a bar Dan owned in the early ’80’s. Like I said, I can’t find the audio online but I did find this on Dan’s website that is pretty much word for word what I heard:
The Curtain Pulled Back to Reveal Opponents Working with Trial Lawyers
Dan Patrick under coordinated attack by opponents and Democrats
HOUSTON – Ethics reports filed yesterday reveal trial lawyers and Democrats have donated heavily to Texans for Accountability PAC and Jerry Patterson in an effort to defeat authentic conservative Dan Patrick. Todd Staples and David Dewhurst are acting in concert, echoing the false attacks in statements and in advertising.
Texans for Accountability PAC finally had to come out of the shadows and reveal their financial supporters in an ethics report. Not surprisingly, it shows that the PAC is funded by Trial Lawyers and Democrat donors [http://204.65.203.5/public/605605.pdf] who have already given Jerry Patterson nearly $100,000.
Texans for Accountability was created with the sole purpose of opposing Dan Patrick. On a tip from a Democrat politician in Houston, Patterson attacked Dan Patrick on false claims about knowingly hiring illegal immigrants and helping them gain citizenship. The facts turned out to be that Dan did not personally hire the worker and that the worker presented fraudulent documents in order to be hired.
The letter that Patterson accused Dan of sending to the federal government in order for the employee to gain citizenship turned out to be a handwritten letter documenting the workers years of service. The letter was not addressed to anyone, does not provide any context for its purpose and is not signed or written by Patrick.
Joining the cabal, Todd Staples and David Dewhurst have echoed these false claims in newspapers and in their own recent commercials. At the same time, both candidates deny their record of supporting or expanding social programs for illegal immigrants. Now the Texas Democrat Party is actively pushing their voters to work against Dan.
“I reject the corrupt political games by opponents and I am shocked that they would work with trial lawyers and democrat donors for their personal gain,” said Patrick. “I will continue to focus on my record and my conservative agenda and let my opponents suffer the consequences of an electorate that is tired of politics as usual.”
###
And here are some more facts about that slime:
Lie #1: Dan Patrick knowingly hired illegal immigrants.
Truth:
– Dan Patrick never hired an illegal immigrant.
– Media outlets only provide the story of Miguel Andrade; they do not make any claims of their own regarding Dan Patrick’s knowledge of Andrade’s immigration status.
– Andrade also admitted that it was a restaurant manager who hired him, not Dan Patrick.
– Further, Andrade admitted to providing the hiring manager a fake Social Security card and Green card to complete his W4.
– Additionally, media outlets reported that Patrick did not himself hire anyone illegal.
Lie #2: Dan Patrick wrote a letter seeking amnesty for an illegal immigrant.
Truth:
– The letter was not written or signed by Dan Patrick.
– Furthermore, the letter supplied to the media does not request amnesty for Andrade. It only verifies that he was employed at Dan Patrick’s restaurant from 1983 through 1985. There is no recommendation that he be granted citizenship or a request that he be granted amnesty (Patrick Letter).
– Patterson admits it may have been someone else who was attempting to help Andrade. Dan Patrick never wrote a letter seeking amnesty. Plain and simple.
If I can find the audio, I’ll put it here because hearing it really drives the point home that this is a phony “scandal”.
As a Dewhurst supporter, I’m anxious because I see him slipping back into negative mode instead of focusing on his positive record. That didn’t work out so well in his last race and it won’t work here. Hopefully, he’ll get back in focus and win the race.
But if he doesn’t, and if Dan wins, relax. The worst that can happen is that he cuts the budget more than David. Oh wait. That’s from a Democrats perspective. Hmm. Let’s see. What’s the worst that can happen if Dan wins? Secure the border? Wait! That too is from a Democrats perspective, although I suppose you could add Patterson supporters to that. What then? What’s the worst that could happen?
Like I said, relax. Take a chill pill. Texas will be just fine under Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick if that is what the voters want.
If I were Patrick, I would NEVER publicly assert I had NEVER hired an illegal alien. Anyone who ran a restaurant in Houston in the early 1980s in all likelihood had at least one illegal alien working for him washing dishes or bussing tables. I wouldn’tquestion his word if he said he never KNOWINGLY hired an illegal alien but the early 1980s was before employers were required to check out people before hiring them. A lo of people had phony social security cards and forged green cards.
Never and always are two of he biggest words in the English language. One should be very careful before using those words.
This is exactly the case I have in mind. Patrick’s restaurant (maybe one of his underlings but it was his restaurant) hired an illegal alien who had phony identification. An illegal alien was hired, but presumably not knowingly.
There’s lots of other reasons to vote for or against Dan Patrick. But this isn’t one of them.
Dave: you really think Texas will be ok if Dan Patrick was the primary? I’m not so sure about that – Lt Gov. Van de Putte if he comes out on top in the primary or the runoff.
I’m not “afraid” of seeing Mr. Goeb as Lt. Gov., but it would be embarrassing to have the only Lt. Gov. in the nation who had, as mentioned in the article, a vasectomy on the radio.
While not “afraid”, I — and I get the sense that the other 3 candidates are in agreement — do NOT want to see him get to the runoff, much less win the nomination. He’s a pompous, self promoting, self righteous jerk. Somehow he manages to pull off arrogance while combining it with a persecution complex.
I’ve seen a lot about how Patterson supposedly “slimed” Patrick. Perhaps the attack was unfair, but if you’ve seen the negative ads Patrick has been running against Patterson, Staples, and Dewhurst, you can certainly understand it. Patrick has attacked Patterson on — of all things — the 2nd Amendment! And then has accused both him and Staples of being “for amnesty”, which is an utter lie. He’s attacked Dewhurst as being a “failed leader”, after having extolled his leadership in Dewhurst’s primary against Ted Cruz.
I voted for Patterson, but I will support either of the other two in a runoff against Dan Patrick.
Well said, Dave. My thoughts exactly. Add to that Dan’s abuse of his radio station to demonize fellow Republicans while getting rich off Republican candidates’ advertising money, and you have a man whose temperament and leverage will lead to the type of political intimidation that will further balkanize this party into permanently warring factions. I cannot and will not support this man for higher office.
Ed, you mention another good point, one that I forgot about. During various elections, the assorted hosts would come on right after a particular candidate’s paid ad and then ridicule said candidate if he or she wasn’t Patrick-approved.
David, Good job of restating without question Dan Patricks rebuttal. You apparently believe if Dan Patrick says it, it must be true. Let me say, Dan’s knowing employment of 6-8 illegal aliens (you apparently didn’t see Phil Archers story last night on Channel 2) in just one of his several sportsbars 30 years ago is an issue for a couple of reasons. One reason is I can’t allow an opponent to attack me for months on his talkischeaptexas website and FB ads, falsely accuse me of supporting amnesty, falsely state I voted for the Robin Hood school finance bill (20 yrs ago), and even claim I voted to ban guns on campus (20 yrs ago), when all of that is demonstrably false. I used to think Dan was a liar. I don’t any more. I think he actually believes that if he says it, its true-an even bigger problem for Texas. Another reason is the “alien invasion” of illegals bringing “third world diseases such as leprosy” and Dan’s almost sole focus on illegal immigration as the issue in this race makes his hypocrisy, even 30 years ago, fair game. You reference “some dude working at a bar Dan owned”. Well actually that “one dude” was 1 of 6-8 “dudes”, none of whom spoke English, none of whom had an ID or drivers license, and you say “Dan Patrick never knowingly hired an illegal immigrant”. Well he certainly knowingly employed quite a few- a distinction without a difference I think you would agree. Your biggest lulu of a comment is, “now the Texas Democratic Party is actively pushing their voters to work against Dan”. David, that is a whopper and you know it. Do you care to substantiate that claim? Any evidence? Any source other than Dan Patrick? My information is that Letitia Van De Putte has stated on more than one occasion that now that Wendy is toast, Dan is the only candidate the Dems think they can beat, and they’re excited about their chances. I don’t necessarily agree that Letitia can beat Dan, but he would be the weakest link on the R ballot. As to the letter, when the copy of Mr Andrades Alien Amnesty Application file arrives from INS with Dans letter in it, we’ll know that regardless of its intent, it was used by Mr Andrade to obtain amnesty. Of course Dan will say that Mr Andrade must’ve lied about its purpose. Hang in there man, there’s a lot more shoes to fall in this story sometime between now and the runoff. I hope its not an issue after that, because the Dems have been working on this for a long time. I just wish we knew what I suspect they already know. I doubt they’ll come forward until after the runoff, and if Dan’s the man, it will be too late. Jerry Patterson
Commissioner, you make a good point, and I agree: I think Patrick has that Bill Clinton quality that he starts believing his own lies. It’s like George Costanza in the classic Seinfeld episode: “It’s not a lie if you believe it’s true.”
Good luck making the runoff.
I’ll be darn! Guess what someone just sent me right after I posted the above? A link to a new missive from the Dan Patrick campaign, explaining their view of the hiring illegals flap. And the explanation is almost exactly the same as the bullet points in David Jennings post “Why is Everyone Afraid of Dan Patrick?” You don’t think Dan Patricks campaign had some input in to Big Jolly’s narrative do you? Look at both and you be the judge… http://www.danpatrick.org/facts/ Jerry Patterson
Commissioner Patterson, um, there is no conspiracy here. Dan Patrick’s campaign “had some input” I suppose because I went to that website and copied those facts. If you are saying anything beyond that, then, I can’t help you.
I’ll let the campaigns fight about the other stuff. It is my opinion that your attack based upon some dude (or dudes) that worked in a bar during a different era means that Dan is a hypocrite on immigration is slimy. You always seemed like such a straight-shooter to me before this election. Live and learn.
David,
Your response is very telling. You say “there’s no conspiracy here”, I didn’t say there was. Conspiracy implies someone is being devious, you’re not being devious, you’re just openly on a jihad.
Then you state you went to Dan’s website “and copied those facts”! That is a revelation that trumps all else that you’ve written – in other words, if it’s on Dan’s website it’s a fact!
Did you go to my website and read what I have to say about immigration? Or did you just take as “fact” Dan’s claim that I’m a proponent of amnesty? His bogus claim is what makes relevant his knowingly employing 6-8 illegals (not the “one dude” as you still describe it) 30 yrs ago.
Then you comment that you’ll “let the campaigns fight about the other stuff”. Well, you chose to do precisely the opposite – you chose to engage in that fight on the side of one campaign.
As to my being a straight shooter, I am. You just don’t like the shots I take.
Being a contrarian is frequently a good thing for commentators. Contrarians are a needed antidote for the “group think” that sometime permeates public discourse. In your case, your contrarianism of endorsing Dewhurst and defending Dan is contrarianism for the sake of being contrary, at least in my opinion.
I suspect you’ve got at least one more factually challenged cheap shot attack on Jerry Patterson in your quiver. While those cheap shots might hurt my credibility somewhat, they hurt your credibility far more.
Jerry Patterson
I am not afraid of Dan Patrick, I just think he is a vile, disgusting example of a human. If he is hte Republican candidate in the General election, I will vote for the Democrat.
Never mind all that hiring of illegal aliens…I was disgusted by Dan Patrick’s own response to Sherry Koffler’s question as to why he left a Houston businessman holding the bag for almost $400,000 when he declared bankruptcy in the 1980’s during the KERA Lt. Governor’s debate.
Especially since Patrick never attempted to repay the man later when he could. But of course he has donated “nearly a million dollars” to charity. “Paid millions in taxes”.
Character and integrity? Hell, no! Dan Patrick is a bible thumping hypocrite.
http://vulturepolitics.wordpress.com/2014/01/28/what-kind-of-man-is-gop-candidate-for-lt-governor-dan-patrick-one-that-doesnt-repay-his-debts/
That’s why I’ll be voting for Jerry Patterson.
The Founding Fathers included “creating uniform rules for bankruptcy” as one of the enumerated powers of congress. People who lend money know there is chance they will lose it through bankruptcy or just a failure to repay.
Today is Texas Independence Day. Many of the heros of the revolution such as Travis and Bowie owed everybody. They came to Texas to escape their debts. Texas always was a debtor’s state — at least until George W. Bush, Kay Bailey Hutchinson and John Cornyn changed federal bankruptcy laws to limit our homestead excemption which has been part of Texas law since the Republic.
Presumably, Patrick was honest in his bankruptcy filings. If not, he committed a federal felony. He lived by the law in effect at the time he went bankrupt. The people who lent him money knew there was a chance his business would go broke. Restaurants and bars often fail. The lenders knew their risks.
As I said in the first comment to this post, there are lots of good reasons to vote for or against Dan Patrick. His bankruptcy isn’t one of them.
Commissioner Patterson,
I honestly think you’re all good candidates and deep down you all care about the citizens of this state. Call me naive, but I think the “problems” with any of you four are really insignificant in the greater scheme of things. I’m proud of all of you and will strongly support whomever wins this primary. I hope the three that do not end up on top coalesce behind the chosen nominee and let bygones be bygones. I know you’re in full-on campaign mode, as are the other candidates, so I definitely don’t judge any of y’all based on being a “negative” campaigner (I’ve always thought that was such a silly way to assult someone, but maybe that’s because I’m too aware of what goes on with campaigns and elections). I do wish you good luck and thank you for your years of public/military service.
David,
I really like this article. It’s easy to get caught up in this primary election, probably one of the biggest in terms of the sheer breadth of important open seats/contested elections. It’s important to take a step back at times and just realize that in most of these statewide elections (sans the gubernatorial, senatorial, and 311th District Court elections where there are clearly poor, harmful, or otherwise ridiculous candidates running), the GOP would be well served with any of the candidates as the Republican nominee. I tried my best to research and select the candidates I thought would be best for the State, but, honestly, when you look at the races like the one for Lieutenant Governor or Attorney General among many others… I honestly believe that I would be happy with any of the candidates. Thanks so much for your work and your endorsement matrix, by the way. It definitely helped me make a more educated choice.
Victor, Thanks for your comments. The end is near! Well at least until the runoff(s) start. In other words, there’s about an 8 hr break! JP
I wish I had something well thought out to post here, but I can only offer a personal anecdote regarding Dan Patrick: I consider him an arrogant, so-and-so who doesn’t like to be disagreed with or challenged in a public forum/social media even when he puts himself out there. Not the personality type I want to see in a politician who, after all, works for ME.