I think it is the latter. Because the other option would be to think that Mr. Polland sold his endorsement to Mr. Woodfill for the paltry sum of $5,000 that he received from Mr. Woodfill back in October. That doesn’t seem like a large enough amount to buy an endorsement – heck, Mr. Woodfill has given $12,000 to a hack like Terry Lowry this cycle and Mr. Polland’s endorsement is certainly worth more than Mr. Lowry’s. I mean, Mr. Polland’s clients actually win more than they lose, unlike Mr. Lowry’s.
So I have to fall back to the favor called in theory because I doubt Mr. Polland would enter this type of fray on his own. Nothing about that would make sense. But doing a favor for an old friend, one that is currently not in office but is still a driver in the conservative wing of the HCRP does make sense. That and the way the piece is written. It is far less an endorsement than it is an attack on Mr. Woodfill’s opponents, complete with little details that, frankly, aren’t Mr. Polland’s forte. He’s a big picture guy – do you really think that Gary Polland paid attention to the attendance roll of a 2008 HCRP Executive Committee meeting in which information packets were handed out to precinct chairs, as noted in his criticism of Mr. Simpson? I don’t. But I do know a certain party employee that would. So there you go – I think a favor was called in by an old friend to allow someone to use Mr. Polland’s name on an article he didn’t write.
Now remember, I can’t prove that – that is simply my observation. You can do as I did and go back and read through several months worth of columns from Mr. Polland and compare the writing style. Other than the use of the third person “Your Editor” (overused in this one), the styles aren’t even the same. Check it out. Now, let’s review what the ghostwriter had to say.
On Jared Woodfill
The first portion of the Woodfill endorsement pumps up Mr. Woodfill’s insider connections, detailing all the positions he held. Nothing is said about the short tenure at each of those positions but it is true that he held numerous positions. Kudos, I guess. The idea that someone has to move from within the ranks of an organization to be the head of it goes against all modern management theory. Obviously, being an insider can help as far as historical knowledge goes but insiders also have limited ability to re-direct an organization because it is all they know. They have no external organizational experience to draw upon. While it is certainly a popular method of advancement in dying corporations, dynamic corporations long ago dropped this method of choosing leaders.
The second half talks begins:
As HCRP Chairman, Jared has been an effective spokesman for conservative candidates and causes.
And goes on to tout his championing of various initiatives that are popular with Republican voters “(see photo ID, fighting against the Blocker Bill and the sanctity of life and marriage, just to name a few)” – all of which have failed. There is a difference between being a spokesman and being an “effective spokesman”. As Mr. Polland well knows but the ghostwriter apparently doesn’t.
Then the piece goes on to tout Mr. Woodfill’s fundraising activities – fine, a lot of money passed through the HCRP over the years. Where was that money when the office was closed last year and there was no money to pay the employees? Where was that money during the fall of last year when Mr. Woodfill’s law firm was forced to pay the salary of the HCRP receptionist? Money passing through an organization (churning, as it is sometimes called) doesn’t pay the bills if it isn’t managed and used properly.
But the last section is the most damning. Mr. Woodfill took control of the machine that Mr. Polland built and slowly and systematically tore it apart by allowing a section of the party to become purifiers, throwing out anyone that didn’t agree with them 100{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} of the time. The results speak for themselves. Mr. Woodfill takes credit for the victories in 2002 that in reality belonged to Mr. Polland. He was able to maintain the position in 2004, a presidential year with a Texan at the head of the ticket. In 2006, long before anyone had heard of Barack Obama, the HCRP almost lost county wide, with a very narrow margin of victory. And in 2008, we were slaughtered because of his inept leadership.
Take a look at this chart, which tracks the outcomes of Republicans and Democrats in Harris County Judicial races since 1996:
County-wide judicial races are one of the better barometers of a party’s effectiveness because there isn’t the same type of attention paid to them nor the same levels of advertising and money. Trust me on this one, I’ve been covering this primary daily for six months or so. When Republicans, under Betsy Lake and later Mr. Polland, built up the party in Harris County, they defeated all Democratic judges. When Republicans, under Mr. Woodfill’s leadership, let that party slide backwards, Democrats defeated the Republican judges. 2008 in Harris County was less about Barack Obama and more about Jared Woodfill’s effectiveness. Just look at the facts, not the spin.
On Ed Hubbard
The writer’s main thesis is that since Mr. Hubbard isn’t inbred, he isn’t qualified. Take that as you may but I would point out that Mr. Hubbard is about as qualified as Mr. Woodfill was on those terms – all of those positions that Mr. Woodfill held with the HCRP total up to a very small amount of time with the party. Mr. Hubbard, in addition to running as a candidate in early 2008, has been working to improve the outreach of the party since he lost that election in 2008. As they say, in life you sometimes learn more by losing than by winning. That Mr. Woodfill has used Mr. Hubbard’s plan for the future direction of the party as his own is testament to the lack of positive ideas that the HCRP has had under Mr. Woodfill’s leadership.
Another criticism that the writer makes is that Mr. Hubbard has only raised $9,000 in his attempt to unseat the entrenched chair. Well, I’d say that is a smashing success. I’d like to see the writer raise that amount under the same conditions. Hint – the writer couldn’t do it.
On Paul Simpson
Here is where the writer really goes uncharacteristically negative in an endorsement piece.
we were saddened that Republican straight ticket voting, in the very precinct that Paul chairs, has performed 8 points (on average) below the county-wide Republican average for the last three election cycles
he didn’t bother to attend the 2008 HCRP Executive Committee meeting, where detailed information packets were provided by leadership
Does that sound like Gary Polland to you? Do you seriously think that Mr. Polland scoured the records and found that statistic about the precincts? Heh. No, you don’t, do you? But there is someone in the circle at the HCRP that would fit that bill exactly. Hmm.
And then the writer simply gets his facts wrong, which makes me wonder if Mr. Polland even reviewed this piece or if he thought it best not to.
Most disturbing of all is Paul’s unwillingness to stand firm regarding a critical Republican Platform issue.
And then he references an incident that was widely reported on at the time by the Houston Press. Now, a lot of conservatives will remember Tim Fleck’s work and talk about the bias he displayed in his narratives surrounding facts. Fair enough. But you will notice that they never challenged him on the facts as presented. Never. So, we can reliably turn to his articles, not for their narrative, but for the quotes and facts contained within.
Not only was Mr. Simpson willing to stand, he stood with Mr. Polland, shoulder to shoulder, and defeated the subpoenas that the writer mentioned:
Polland was unavailable for comment, but treasurer Simpson says he has been told a subpoena is on its way. “I don’t know the details of what they did or what motivated them,” comments the Houston lawyer, “but it seems like a politically inspired attack on free speech.”
And indeed they did defeat that together. The writer of Mr. Polland’s endorsement totally misconstrues the events of the day, when in fact it was Paul Simpson that took the correct road on this issue. Read these three articles for background if you dare to have your mind opened about the incident – you will begin to understand the desperation at the HCRP offices these days:
That last link could help explain why Mr. Polland let this material be released under his name.
“I got fired,” explains attorney Simpson, who as general counsel to the party had stood by Polland through a controversy last year involving a letter from Republican county chairs pressuring an appeals court judge to change his stance on overturning the state sodomy law. Polland had instructed Simpson to draft the letter, but it was never officially sent to appellate Justice John Anderson. An investigation by the district attorney ultimately found no wrongdoing.
Note that the letter was never officially sent by Mr. Polland – it was a very, very bad idea and he finally figured it out. Think not?
In a letter to Polland last week, the jurist offered this take on the chairman’s actions:
“As an attorney, I would think you would respect and honor the independence of our judiciary. Unquestionably, this is not the case as evidenced by your political threats directed at our appellate judges. You seem to have taken the ‘bully pulpit’ to a new low.
“Hope you understand that if you ever threaten me over a judicial ruling, you may be leaving my office head first.
“Very truly yours, Michael T. McSpadden.”
Last Thoughts
Okay, that is my theory on the Polland endorsement. Take it as you wish. And remember, do endorsements usually come complete with negative attacks on the opponents? Look at the C-Club endorsement for an example of how to do it right. In answer to the question at the top of the endorsement using the name of Gary Polland:
Is It Time For a New GOP Chair in Harris County?
The answer, ladies and gentlemen, is a resounding YES.
I’ll leave you with the thoughts of someone very near and dear to the hearts of Harris County Republicans, Uncle Paul. I doubt even he realized at the time how true his words were – all one has to do is to look at the chart above to see how true they are.
Bettencourt believes that after six years, holding the county chairmanship becomes a diminishing-returns proposition for anyone.